Numbers, Baby

We spoke about our shift in thinking, …

… remember?

Magic Bull has decoupled…

…in its approach.

The WWS exit pathway.

Worst weed standing.

Remember that name.

And out it goes.

Upon opportunity.

Upon expenses.

Now here’s another one.

BPS.

Best performing scrip.

Add to.

Get its buying average down, on purpose.

It’s got maximum runway, to WWS.

That’s why, add to it from proceeds, from fresh income.

Don’t look at any other metric.

Just the fact that it’s the BPS.

And add.

It’s performing.

You’re betting on continued performance.

A few quarters might dip.

Unless it demotes to WWS, it won’t be expunged.

Then 8 quarters in a row – extraordinary growth.

Remember that high growth is a non-linear entity.

To catch it, and harness it optimally, we must be…

there.

In the most manageable, highest magnitude way.

As you keep adding to your BPS, it eventually gets demoted to number two, or three, or something.

Because, buying average dips.

That’s great.

Now we have a new best performing scrip to be added to.

Sideway injections. Bombastic results from a held scrip above buying average? Add to, one lot.

New members. Bombastic YoY results and a little QoQ improvement too? Add to, one lot.

That’s the entire system.

Funds move towards strength.

No affiliations.

No married to.

You control by attenuating the speed and the magnitude of WWS exits.

All held above 25%?

Stop the expunging.

Trade something else on another platform, other underlyings or scrips, for distraction.

Or…

…go on a holiday.

Advice?

Advisor?

No room.

Also, where is the need?

Everything is right here.

Programme your AI to serve results on a platter, screened, each morning, to feed the system with sideway injections and / or potential new candidates.

All we need now…

…is guts, to follow through.

Rest is all numbers…

…baby.

Sweet Spot? Seal it.

Magic question.

You’ve definitely been asked before.

Many times.

How many stocks are ideal? In a folio.

What’s the answer? The correct one.

I have a different question.

My question is – is this really the correct question?

I have another question.

Why are we even trying to ask this question?

One more.

What allowed us to define…

…the flow…

…of a macro entity called the market…

…as it relates to micro individuals like us?

Right.

Let’s try this other approach.

Which one?

The one where we don’t define.

Where we let the market’s flow and our experience of it decide…

…how many stocks?

How does this play out then, for us, in practical terms?

Entry. Entries. As per criteria.

Wherever criteria are met – entries, thus.

Exit as per WWS (worst weed standing) ideology, please see the last piece written.

Thus exit trapdoor portal is narrow.

Top-up parameters. Define.

So you’ve got entries happening, top-ups too, and a narrow exit path through the WWS route.

That’s all the defining that’s required.

Number of stocks comes into automatic generation mode.

Breaking it down.

Entry criteria hits for 20 stocks over the next 12 months. So, 20 entries.

All available funds in.

WWS engine switched on.

New entry candidate.

Worst weed out.

New candidate in.

New funds come in.

Top-ups.

New entries.

Number of stocks grows to 40.

Funds run out.

WWS engine switched on.

New candidate.

Worst weed out. New candidate in.

No new funds over the next five years.

5 new candidates. 30 top-ups owing to top-up criteria hits. Personal expenses. All funded by worst weed exits.

Number of stocks after these 5 years reads 25.

And so on and so forth.

Where are you? Nowhere in the picture.

It’s the math taking the decisions. The defined system. Rule-based. Exactitude. On auto. No emotion. No you. Except to press the buttons.

Sweet spot.

Seal it.

Approach

Hey,

Just did a mental review about my approach to the markets over the years.

Saw how I started out.

What was the motivation?

Strategy?

Mindset?

Outcome?

Then gauged these parameters after being in the markets for ten years.

And, finally, assessed the same as of today, after being in the markets for twenty years.

Here are a few observations.

Approach softened over the years.

Not in quantity. Will come to that in a bit.

No, approach became opportunity-linked.

One didn’t wish that the markets would be somewhere.

One played them where they were, as was worthy of that situation.

One wasn’t tense.

One had rules. Approach was now rule-based.

One enjoyed the approach.

It was relaxing.

It now gave a kick.

Now, there was feeling of achievement.

Of creation.

Of success.

Earlier, all this wasn’t there.

One was tense most of the time.

One followed markets all the time.

Sometimes, sleep eluded.

Now, after market hours, what market? When you don’t think about it, it doesn’t exist, for you.

I’d said I would mention quantity, which has been increasing steadily, since it’s a function of portfolio-size.

So, in a nutshell, benefits abound, upon ever-increasing quantity?

What’s happened?

What’s changed?

Have gotten into a groove.

Found a sweet-spot.

Entered a zone. The Zone, perhaps.

It’s like that ‘perfect’ cover drive, or an optimal trajectory golf drive shot resulting in a birdie for the hole. Don’t wish to use ‘hole-in-one’ here, that would be too much… .

In the Zone, you know things.

Someone outside the Zone will ask how one knows.

Don’t know. One just knows.

One can attach oneself to the swing of the Universe.

One is one with the swing.

It takes time to get into the groove.

For me, make that twenty years.

One becomes mouldable, and flows with the current of the Zone.

I enjoy my approach.

It’s not tangible.

Visibility is not my criterion.

What is, then?

Fulfilment.

If my approach is all I have when I die, I’ll leave with a feeling of fulfilment.