350Z's 2007 I Fund Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
I took a big hit. Many of us did. However, have decided to follow the ebbtracker as a trading alternative. Therefore, I will do an IFT to I fund ciob today. The high percentage probability wins that the ebbtracker has in its record gives me sufficient confidence to trust that a probable comeback and consistent profits in the 30% a year-range are within our reach. This is a disciplined approach. Big time trust!!! We
 
spacer.gif
The market has gone from being very overbought to now becoming very oversold. All three major averages are at or nearing their 50 Day EMA's which are 13175 (Dow), 2541 (Nasdaq) and 1490 (S&P 500). I would expect we will see at least a minor oversold bounce develop near their 50 Day EMA's for a day or two beginning either tomorrow or next Monday.

Thus we have a rather strong Buy Signal for Friday in the DIA's, QQQQ's and SPY's. I would set my initial entry prices on Friday 10 cents below Thursday's closing prices which were 132.53 (DIA), 46.34 (QQQQ) and 149.10 (SPY). If by chance the market opens lower than the entry prices then adjust your entry price to the lower value if you have the opportunity to do so.

Meanwhile for those that are following the Oil Service Holders (OIH) there is a strong Buy Signal in them as well. I would set my initial entry price at 167.06 or if they gap lower at the open at the lower price.


white

White, I want to express my sorrow for your families loss, I'm sure your families loss will be deeply felt. So my thoughts go out to your family.....

Hope a rebound is in order.....
 
I hope it was back-tested through a couple deep corrections; with good results. Do we need to take it off auto-pilot and fly it the old fashioned way through a market correction?
I took a big hit. Many of us did. However, have decided to follow the ebbtracker as a trading alternative. Therefore, I will do an IFT to I fund ciob today. The high percentage probability wins that the ebbtracker has in its record gives me sufficient confidence to trust that a probable comeback and consistent profits in the 30% a year-range are within our reach. This is a disciplined approach. Big time trust!!! We
 
G fund +.01 >>> +0.08%
F fund -.06 >>> -0.5%
C fund -.29 >>> -1.71%
S fund -.40 >>> -1.93%
I fund -.53 >>> -2.16% (1.1% of that was FV)

OUCH!!!
 
To compute a maximum loss, the daily percent losses must be "compounded" by multiplying one (the initial premium) minus the reported daily loss for each day in the period of interest, and then subtract one from the final product to get the compound "gain," ie [(1+x) * (1+y) * (1+z)...]-1, where x,y,z...are the "gains" each day. Since no daily "gain" can be greater than -1, all values multiplied will be 0 or positive, so the product will be 0 or positive and after subtracting 1 it can be no worse than -100%. That would mean that on some particular day, every stock in the index in which you were invested was worth nothing (and you "sold" them anyway, essentially gave them away.) The likelihood of this happening, of course, is beyond the calculating capabilities of the Galactic Hitchhiker's Improbability Drive. But even theoretically you can't lose more than you've got, or 100%.

For illustration, suppose that for 5 days straight, you chose the worst performing fund which lost 20%. You will not have lost all your money (5 * 20% = 100%), but only 0.8*0.8*0.8*0.8*0.8 = 0.32768. So you would still have an impressive (after those kind of losses) balance of 33% of your starting principle.

Of course, gains are compounded like this as well, so I suspect that the max gain you have listed should be much, MUCH higher. Of course that is why it takes a 100% gain to "correct" a 50% loss.

Nu numbers....

Max gain this year .... 72% (316% last year)
Max loss this year .... 38% ( 70% last year)
 
Nu numbers....

Max gain this year .... 72% (316% last year)
Max loss this year .... 38% ( 70% last year)

Those numbers sound more realistic. Interestingly, the max gains this year are right about what it would take to "correct" the max loss this year [(1+0.72) * (1-0.38)] = 1.0664.

Of course it doesn't work out quite like that for last year, since 4.16 * 0.3 is still 1.248. That's how good a year it was (and low volatility), I guess. Does that mean the monkeys would have made about 25%. That doesn't say much for me in the single digits last year.:rolleyes:
 
If the I fund had a -FV yesterday, is it almost certain that today it will be taken out, and that tomorrow the I fund will be back to neutral?
 
Early estimate:

I'm showing a -.26 cent down in the "I" fund right now- Dollar is hammering the value overall.

Is that correct? Is the dollar really up .5% right now?
 
If the I fund had a -FV yesterday, is it almost certain that today it will be taken out, and that tomorrow the I fund will be back to neutral?

No, yesterday's -FV will be corrected today. It will be added back today.

Early estimate:

I'm showing a -.26 cent down in the "I" fund right now- Dollar is hammering the value overall.

Is that correct? Is the dollar really up .5% right now?

Yes, that is correct. Plus yesterday's -28FV = 1 cent total gain.
 
Stocks down, bonds getting hit, the flight to quality is going into the dollar.
 
Stocks down, bonds getting hit, the flight to quality is going into the dollar.
Sounds like a fortune cookie.
So, in English, bullet format, right out of TSP for Dummies, what are you saying, Tom?
I know there are legal implications to your giving investment advice, but how many logical leaps away was the above statement from useable for the average person to make their own decisions (with the advice of a professional, of course)? I'm not trying to be derogatory, but we've all seen C, S, I, and F go down this week. Are you suggesting this is a buying opportunity? Are you refering to large caps as "quality"? Is the dollar going to continue up making the I less attractive? Or should we all make a mad dash for the G?

I'm not a lawyer, so if your legal advisors have told you otherwise, obviously I'd stick with their advice, but it seems to me that you could extend your observations a bit farther to include some potential implications without actually advising anyone to do anything. I read your comments every day, so I know there's more to it than, "Stocks down." Please share.:)
 
Last edited:
I think he was simply responding to James' observation and amazement that the dollar was up 0.5%. Tom is saying that the reason the dollar is up is because both stocks & bonds are down, and therefore the flight to quality is going to the dollar. But I'll let Tom speak for himself.

That's the way I interpreted it also. Better put... the flight to SAFETY is going to the dollar. When there is no reasonable place to invest then cash is king.
 
I think he was simply responding to James' observation and amazement that the dollar was up 0.5%. Tom is saying that the reason the dollar is up is because both stocks & bonds are down, and therefore the flight to quality is going to the dollar. But I'll let Tom speak for himself.
Oh, well that makes sense.

Okay, constructive criticism mode (out of love but it never comes off that way):
Tom, I've noticed that you tend to post responses to question or comments without quoting them. Frequently there are a number of unrelated posts between these making it difficult to follow your train of thought. Please consider (as I dictate to you the rules for your website;)) quoting the initiating comment so as to avoid confusion.:)

Oh, and sorry for the original misunderstanding:embarrest:.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top