Rounders

West’s got…

…woes, …

…currently being voiced in…

…Dawoes.

World Economic Forums come and go.

We’re not looking for flavours of the season.

And what’s our game?

Growth.

Ok.

With value.

How?

Reasonable price. Good dip on chart owing to current theatricals.

How do you measure value on a chart?

You can use conventionally accepted systems like Fibonacci, or you can make up your own systems too, whatever works for you.

Example?

First I’ll give you an example from Fibonacci.

Ok.

I’ll be buying into Growth below midpoint between 61.8% and 78.6% dip on a Fibonacci retracement.

Why?

That’s when the rubber-band is really being stretched, and beyond.

And what if the fall goes beyond 100 on the Fibonacci.

So be it. Change the retracement starting point to one pivot below. You now have a new Fibonacci. Buy below your band, defined just above.

Oh, so you’ve kind of re-assembled Fibonacci usage for yourself.

Ya. Anyone can do it.

Give me a more unique example. Something that’s your own.

I have the round number thing.

Being?

When all levels under consideration are broken or met, that’s when I activate ‘Rounders’.

Ha! Nice touch with the nickname!

:-).

Tell me about Rounders.

Well, at this point, when everything else is broken or met, and you’re poised to enter, you ask yourself just one more question.

Which is?

What’s the one round number below? 1000? 100? 50? 25? 10? 5?

5s are round numbers?

For scrips quoting in double digits, very much so.

Ok, so what of the one round number below?

Below this point, look for a break by about a percent, and buy there.

Sucking out all the value that’s possible, are you?

One takes what one can get.

What if you don’t get your buy?

So we don’t get it. Period. Soldiers are intact to fight another day. We wait for a few sessions and end up getting our price. Or not. In which case we deactivate Rounders if we are that keen to enter, and then we go for it.

I see. Soldiers?

Capital deployed into untriggered trade. This one’s no big deal either, by the way. Jesse Livermore used to buy three points below support, I believe.

Were you inspired by Jesse regarding Rounders?

I’ve read and re-read a lot of his books, so, perhaps.

But the name you’re using is yours.

It is. Rounders is a name I’ve given.

How come you gave a name?

Cheap thrills. 🙂

How to?

How does one…

…position oneself…

…for what’s coming?

What’s coming?

Yeah.

Meaning the turbulence ahead?

What else. First up, we’re taking turbulence to be the norm, from this point onwards.

All right. Turbulence = norm. Baseline set.

Then, how do we maximally exploit our understanding, …

…simultaneously creating income…

…but then also allowing wealth to accumulate and compound?

Yeah, how do we?

You tell me.

We need to start with an asset class.

Right.

Which asset class?

Again, you tell me.

What we’re comfortable with.

Yes. Beautiful. And then we weaponize the asset class chosen, the one we’re comfortable with.

Weaponize?

Yeah. Otherwise it will be no good for these times. We need to make it time-befitting.

Example?

Let’s say you choose gold, ok? What good are your efforts in gold if after a point governments nationalize it and then confiscate it, paying you a reasonable price at that moment, and then, from that point onwards, in the hands of enough governments, gold turns a 100-bagger, for them, not for you?

Yeah, what good are my efforts in gold then?

No good. You need to trade gold, use some profits as income, and another portion of profits you invest in other asset classes, bought cheap, which the government has issues regulating harshly.

Like? Crypto?

Some think so. That’s their weapon of choice. Personally, I have problems with storing my entire networth on a pen-drive. That alone takes crypto off the table for me.

So where do you go?

Stocks. They come naturally to me.

Stocks can be harshly regulated.

In isolation, if we’re looking at stocks-stocks, yes, I’ll give you that. In a solid framework encapsulated within an income-generation cum wealth-creation mechanism operating with fundamental, evergreen principles like margin of safety, letting profits run, position-sizing and what have you, even stocks can be made to behave like the anti-fragile system they are a part of.

Would that not be valid for any asset classes, then?

Yes, provided the government can’t seize that asset class overnight from you.

Like cash?

True.

Gold?

True.

Silver?

Yeah.

Bonds?

Not sure. Risk of default though.

Real-estate?

Prices of real-estate follow demand and supply, and demand is reciprocally proportional to negative regulation. Governments can crash real-estate. So, yes.

Crypto?

I’m not so sure that crypto is beyond regulation. However, exchanges collapsing regularly are not my scene.

Stocks?

Have we heard of governments seizing stocks? As long as no illegal activity, all debts paid off, clear ownership and succession, I don’t think the government can do that. So stocks of companies, for me, remain in the fray. On top of that, we encapsulate them into a system. The system has an edge. It’s multi-faceted. It generates income, approximately when required, in cash. Otherwise, it creates wealth through compounding. Throw in 20 -30 models like margin of safety, letting most profits run, position-sizing, fine-tuned Fibonacci, income dynamos, etc. etc., and what we’re looking at is a unique entity, which behaves differently when compared to fragile stocks, or even to robust stocks.

So what you’re trying to say is that it all depends how you handle each asset class is what makes that asset class either fragile, robust or anti-fragile.

Exactly.

Is that your word?

Which word?

Anti-fragile.

No. It belongs to Mr. Taleb. In whatever way a word or a concept can belong to a person…

Like governments can crash real-estate, they can also crash stocks. What do you say to that?

Oh, that’s an anti-fragile part of this system, which leaves the user liquid enough to benefit greatly from such crash, seen from a 15 month perspective. User of such system is positioned to take huge advantage of temporary and large price dips. Stocks have a very low ticket size as compared to real-estate, and can be readily swooped up in a crash in bulk, unlike real-estate, which is heavy and is a huge liquidity-enemy.

Where do you stand with your system, personally?

As a whole, I’m working towards making my system with stocks, income-generation and wealth-compounding as antifragile as I possibly can.

What’s the critical mass, above which the system can be considered safe for the new world order?

I’m not sure. It’s all experimental.

So how will you know?

If I make the transition to the new world order whilst preserving a large portion of my portfolio, I’ll know that I’ve succeeded.

Any other method apart from the make or break one suggested by you?

No. Everything else is theory. Surviving reasonably well and then thriving is the only practical method that counts for me.

Thanks.

🙂

What’s it Gonna Take Today, Pal?

Indicators.

Fibonacci.

Moving averages.

Price action.

Isn’t everyone following all this?

Do the markets behave accordingly?

No. Not really. Sometimes, sure. Generally, no. Just my opinion.

So?

Where does that leave you?

How do you plan your trade entry?

There’s not much planning to it really.

Oh yeah?

Pray on what basis is one to enter then?

Study.

Then overall feel.

What?

Yes.

Gumption?

So?

With no study, direction’s a 50:50.

With study leading to overall feel translating into gumption, this ratio could well become 55:45.

You don’t need more.

Blackjack odds for the card-counter are perhaps 53:47 at peak.

Ok, so you’ve got your 55:45, what then?

Trade management.

You make your money managing your trade.

Formula?

Simple one.

You cut the wrong call. Nip it in the bud.

Let the right call continue being even more right.

Learn, perhaps the hard way, to let the winner continue winning.

Trade might reverse.

That’s the risk you have to take, to win more.

There are no free lunches in life.