| Author |
Message |
     hibikijoji
Member
Username: hibikijoji
Post Number: 423
Registered: 08-2005Rating: N/A
Votes: 0
|
| | Friday, March 21, 2008 - 08:20 pm: |  
|
It occurred to me that even with strong stocks, there is a problem when it works against the market - the rules seem broken. Those that goes thru a peak is likely to go back under.
Is it because that the market is risk adverse when its in a bear market?
Is it because that the market is risk seeking when its in a bull market?
To test this out, I am going to follow this plan:
1. Count how many liquid (>1 million volume) shares that are in a bearish trend
2. Count how many liquid shares that are in a bullish trend
3. Make a 'new high' watchlist. Post results
4. Make 'new low' watchlist. Post results
4. Repeat steps 1-3 for one week.
In this way, I want to see if there is a correlation between current market trend and the watchlist.
Disclaimer :
The views expressed here are for experimental practices only. They have not been independently verified. No representation or warranty is made as to the accuracy, completeness or reliability of the information.
Please consult your broker or financial adviser before making an investment decision.
|
dug
Member
Username: dug
Post Number: 2984
Registered: 07-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0
|
| | Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 10:03 am: |
|
Why the One Million Volume criteria,hibi?
That's some Average over some period of time,isn't it?
It'll only chuck up Blue Chips and Pennies Over Issued on the Registry,won't it?
Why are you defining Liquidity by a share turns over a Million or more shares per day?
Are you looking to BUY more than say 100k# in whatever share you dig up?Regardless of Price per?
Certainly you want to cull shares that have only Irregular Sales in say a week.Those who's charts are a series of Dashes with all on their lonesome some single candles.Illiquid because they Don't Trade very much but,well,a Million/day is a pretty vicious cull.
You're not thinking that such Volume indicates Decency and Respectability are you?Why you'll have a Watchlist slanted also to under 5/10 cent shares.Those with a Billion or so Shares on Issue.
I cull the No Actions by 100/200 21 day Average.With a Price top of say $2 maybe $3.This eliminates those dash chart ones and sets for a $10,000 Max Buy usually starting with a 3/5 grand initial position for pyramiding any Goers and Cutting Losses cheap.
cheers.
Even 'til Jaded.
Dig for the sake of it.
|
hibikijoji
Member
Username: hibikijoji
Post Number: 425
Registered: 08-2005Rating: N/A
Votes: 0
|
| | Monday, March 24, 2008 - 08:02 am: |
|
dug wrote on Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 11:03 am:Why are you defining Liquidity by a share turns over a Million or more shares per day?
The reason I initially put that filter in is that all the winners in 2005 (PDN, EXT, TOX, etc) had a sustained volume of over 1 million. It was only later that I found it to be an effective tool to cull those shares that were illiquid.
dug wrote on Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 11:03 am:Are you looking to BUY more than say 100k# in whatever share you dig up?Regardless of Price per?
Nope. Instead of a fixed amount of shares, I buy a fixed amount of capital. That way, each share in my portfolio can be topped up/sold according to a fixed %.
dug wrote on Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 11:03 am:Certainly you want to cull shares that have only Irregular Sales in say a week.
Thats for sure. Since the lists only returns about max. 20 or so shares, I am able to scan using my eyes. It's a pity I cannot do that with IC (a scan for amount of volume spikes would do the trick).
dug wrote on Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 11:03 am:I cull the No Actions by 100/200 21 day Average.With a Price top of say $2 maybe $3.
It seems to return me EME, a share with dashes. Maybe I am doing it wrong, could you tell me what are the settings in the stock scan screen please?
I better define what I mean by illiquid shares:
1) shares that cannot be bought and sold on the market during trading days without causing drastic price swings
2) A stock where buyers are scarce
Now, a volume filter fits into that definition by:
1) If shares are traded at relatively high volume, selling 25k stocks ($5000 @ 20c shares) isn't going to affect a stock which has 1million/day volume turnover
2) For every seller, there is a buyer. If there are no trades going on, it is either:
a) There are no sellers
b) There are no buyers
c) Both.
Two of these three cases are undesirable.
For a more comprehensive explanation, see http://www.fool.com/foolish8/2000/foolish8001211.htm
Disclaimer :
The views expressed here are for experimental practices only. They have not been independently verified. No representation or warranty is made as to the accuracy, completeness or reliability of the information.
Please consult your broker or financial adviser before making an investment decision.
|
dug
Member
Username: dug
Post Number: 2993
Registered: 07-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0
|
| | Monday, March 24, 2008 - 11:13 am: |
|
hibikijoji wrote on Monday, March 24, 2008 - 09:02 am:winners in 2005 (PDN, EXT, TOX, etc) had a sustained volume of over 1 million.
Hibi The Volume for TOX in 2005 was "artificial" in that TOX subsequently did a consolidation 1:8[I think it was]
This was adapted into the Chart Package in regards to Price but NOT in the Volume Figures.ie historic price was multiplied by 8 BUT Volume was NOT Divided by 8 to give a "Balance".
So when you see on the Chart now that some Millions of shares were sold in 2005 for 80cents,Reality was that millions sold for 10cents because the Share Register was bloated by Over Issuing of Shares previously.
So the lesson is that Charts historical/on the Long Term have to be adjusted for FActs like Share Consolidations and Volume prior to such Consolidations is Mis Leading and of No Use in Back Testing Theories.
Now I haven't looked into EXT but I have some memory it also is a Consolidation and as for PDN?well,there's an angle in it that makes it exceptional but I don't want to go into that at the moment.
Other points you made,hibi I'll get back to you about later.
cheers.
Even 'til Jaded.
Dig for the sake of it.
|
|
