|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
<x-html><html>
<font size=3>please send me a belated list of your stocks..with 2 weeks
of data....that is a good start to back test..thanks....<br>
<br>
At 06:31 PM 6/1/00 -0700, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>Yes - Please send the sheets<br>
Thank you<br>
Bob<br>
----- Original Message -----<br>
From: "Guy Tann" <grt@xxxxxxxxxxxx><br>
To: "Metastock User Group"
<metastock-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx><br>
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 11:59 AM<br>
Subject: Picking our stocks<br>
<br>
<br>
> List,<br>
><br>
> If anyone is interested, I have an Excel spreadsheet that I put
together<br>
> with 3 pages. The first page lists those 13 stocks we selected
out of the<br>
> original 55 gleaned from ValueLine. The second page is a quick
analysis<br>
of<br>
> what would have happened if we had bought all 55 of the list, and
the<br>
third<br>
> page shows our breakout of 25 stocks from the original 55 using one
of our<br>
> programs to determine over-bought or over-sold conditions.
These 25<br>
stocks<br>
> were, according to our system, ready to be bought.<br>
><br>
> If anybody is interested, I can send them a copy, but didn't want to
just<br>
> throw it out on the list.<br>
><br>
> Our stock selection technique is as follows:<br>
><br>
> 1) Friday night, we go out on the ValueLine web site and go down to
their<br>
> stock pages. We select those stocks that have a 1 in
timeliness, and a 1<br>
or<br>
> 2 in whatever the second column is to the right of timeliness.
We look<br>
for<br>
> a beta > 1.25. I think we snuck INTC in as well. This
is our preliminary<br>
> cut. This gave us a list of 55 different stocks. We try
to stick with<br>
the<br>
> top performing industries.<br>
> 2) In the next step we apply one of our trading programs to each
stock, to<br>
> determine whether or not our program indicates that the stock
was<br>
over-sold.<br>
> If it was over-sold, we added the stock to our next list. This
reduced<br>
the<br>
> actual number of stocks from 55 to 25, I believe.<br>
> 3) Theoretically, we could have bought all 25. Finally, we go
through the<br>
> list by hand on a conference call and arbitrarily select between 10
and 15<br>
> stocks that we buy on the next day's open. We haven't spent
any time on<br>
> this step yet, and through dumb luck have managed to do fairly well
with<br>
our<br>
> portfolio.<br>
><br>
> I have to give my brother for designing this approach. We will
be<br>
spending<br>
> more time on step 3 as well as working on modifying the procedure
for the<br>
> short side. Right now my brother is a little nervous selling
stocks<br>
short.<br>
> You would think that after trading futures both ways for 40 years,
he<br>
> wouldn't have that problem.<br>
><br>
> Anyway, we went with 13 original stocks on Tuesday's open and added
4 more<br>
> this morning. Based on my preliminary calculations we are a
little ahead<br>
> with our own portfolio as opposed to buying all 25 stock, but not by
much.<br>
><br>
> We are in the process of going back and entering the OB/OS indicator
in<br>
this<br>
> spreadsheet to do some more work on Step 2 and Step 3, above.<br>
><br>
> By the way, purchasing even 100 shares of each of these 55 stocks
stressed<br>
> out each of our margin accounts, but we could have done it with a
little<br>
to<br>
> spare.<br>
><br>
> Guy<br>
><br>
> Paranoia...you only have to be right once to make it all
worthwhile!<br>
><br>
><br>
></font></blockquote><br>
Jim....Atlanta, GA
</html>
</x-html>From ???@??? Tue Jun 20 10:38:22 2000
Return-Path: <majordom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Received: from listserv.equis.com (listserv.equis.com [204.246.137.2])
by purebytes.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA20211
for <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:25:45 -0700
Received: (from majordom@xxxxxxxxx)
by listserv.equis.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA21432
for metastock-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:34:12 -0600
X-Authentication-Warning: listserv.equis.com: majordom set sender to owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx using -f
Received: from freeze.metastock.com (freeze.metastock.com [204.246.137.5])
by listserv.equis.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA21429
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:34:10 -0600
Received: from mercury.shreve.net (root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [208.206.76.23])
by freeze.metastock.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA09427;
Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:54:16 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from al-tag (shv1-24.shreve.net [208.214.44.24])
by mercury.shreve.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA18009;
Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:36:57 -0500
Message-Id: <200006201536.KAA18009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Al Taglavore" <altag@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Metastock User Group" <metastock-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Going short
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:37:35 -0500
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Status:
Guy,
Does your methodology not provide a level for adding to the "correct"
position? It would seem that if the market has proved you right, then
adding weight to the position would be a low risk opportunity.
Al Taglavore
----------
snip-snip-snip---
You wrote:
".... Being chickens, we have taken lite positions (about 40% invested
short in
> equities and 50% short in futures). If it goes against us, we will add
to
> our shorts. If we're right, we'll just take out less money....."
|