Tag Archives: #Price

Rounders

Posted on by
Reply

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. 🙂

Obviousness

Posted on by
Reply

Knowledge streams…

…at unprecedented speed.

You want it?

You got it.

Lag is negligible.

Everyone has access.

Conclusion? Fazit? Nichor? Bilan?

What seems obvious is likely a trap.

Fundamentals can be fudged, to an extent. A closer look at gaps between fundamentals vs actuals unveils those who fudge. Actuals on the ground will need to match fundamentals, somewhere. For example, if there’s no debt on the balance-sheet, there will well be a surplus which the company in question accumulates, and there will be a path on which this surplus flows. This path should be visible in the annual report. If there’s no surplus, company will show visible signs of stagnation. If something officially declared by a company doesn’t match (visible) actuals, the fudging window opens. We steer clear of companies with even a fudging crack open.

Technicals can be used to set entry and exit traps.

By professionals

For the masses.

Masses act at levels.

Generally, price hovers around an obvious level till the majority has acted. Then, generally, price goes against. When crowds cut entries, institutions enter on their exits. This strategy paves the way for relatively easy and heavy entries.

Moral of the story for us?

We wait for an obvious level.

We don’t act. Yet. However, we are on alert.

We envision an aftermath play in our minds.

Entry pivots are coming quick, nowadays. There’s hardly any time to act, especially if one has an otherwise busy schedule.

Therefore…

…we only deal in GTTs. Period.

Thus we feed in our GTTs, as per mentally outlined situation, and back up these with funding, if entry-trigger is less than 5.2% away. All this we do in a cool moment, after market hours, away from the noise, when we can think clearly.

And, most importantly, …

…we do it away from the obviousness.

Bookability

Posted on by
Reply

Booking?

Understandable. 

Don’t book your basics though.

What are these basics?

Stuff you’re convinced about.

We’re long beyond due diligence here.

These underlyings are running. These are your right calls. 

They are not to be booked – as long as your conviction persists.

Any price?

Hmmm – this question brings in the concept of “Bookability”.

Save the booking angle here – for now. 

We’ll just try and answer above question about price. 

Sell everything else, as in any low-conviction holdings,…

…bit by bit,…

as markets tread higher and higher. 

Ultimately, it’ll all be gone. 

You’ll have done very well, and will have made good profits. 

You’re also left with your high-conviction holdings. 

As a bull market persists, these will start quoting at…

…ridiculous prices.

Is something a hold at…

…any price?

If you wish to be holding a multi-multi-bagger, well, then, yes, with a caveat.

When you can’t hold your trigger-fingers any longer, take your principal off the table. 

There.

Happy?

Now, what’s on the table for you, are high-conviction holdings, with principal off the table – aha – so these holding are free of cost for you.

When these high-conviction holdings are free of cost for you, the urge to sell can only persist because of two things. 

You could need the money. 

Fine.

Or,…

…because of an unfounded urge to book, as in “Score!”… .

Not fine. 

Tell your urge to sell that you want to make much, much more, by allowing an underlying to grow to 100x, for example. 

Urge to sell will subside.

What’s causing such urge?

Fear of a correction. 

When you’re holding free stuff, fear of a correction is unfounded. 

This needs to be instilled into our DNA.

With that, we’re done already!