- Steve Jobs by the Numbers
- Apprenticed Investor: Stop-Loss Breakdown
- Income Gain Distribution 1917-81; 1982-2000; 2001-08
- Occupy Wall Street Needs to Occupy Congress, AG offices
- Neuroeconomics: Drazen Prelec
- Move On Tries to Co-Opt the OWS Protests
- Ferrari 458 Spider
- Visualize Yahoo Mail
- Tokyo Hit With Fukushima Radiation
Posted: 15 Oct 2011 03:00 PM PDT
Posted: 15 Oct 2011 12:00 PM PDT
Apprenticed Investor: Stop-Loss Breakdown
This was originally published at The Street.com on November 4, 2005
There’s an old joke about the investor who never used any stop losses. His friend knew his big positions were getting crushed.
Out of concern, the friend asked, “How are you sleeping?”
“Like a baby” he answered.
“Really? You aren’t nervous or upset?”
“I sleep like a baby” he repeated.
“That’s amazing. I’d never be able to sleep through the night with those types of losses.”
“Who said anything about sleeping through the night? I said I slept like a baby: I wake up every two hours, wet myself and cry for 30 minutes before falling back to sleep.”
That’s why risk management is so critical: to save you from sleeping like a baby, and in the long run to save you a lot of money.
Last week’s column focused on protecting your assets and avoiding “fiasco” stocks. The method we discussed was the simplest of all stop losses: the percentage stop.
The percentage stop is not my favorite type of stop loss, but it is better than none at all.
The tricky part is deciding what percentage to use. Make the stop too tight (i.e., 6% to 8%), and in a volatile market you will get stopped out constantly. If the stop loss is too broad (i.e., 25%), then by the time it gets triggered, a lot of damage is already done.
I prefer percentage stops between 12% and 15%; longer-term holders and volatile tech stocks may need a little more room to oscillate. Your goal is to protect yourself against a position that’s gone sour — not against ordinary short-term market swings.
This week, we review several other stop-loss strategies you can use to prevent losses from getting out of hand.
All Kinds of Stops
Use a daily or weekly chart, draw a line connecting the three most recent lows. On the far right side of the chart, place a mark a short way below that line. That’s your stop loss.
This stop should be monitored as the stock price rises. Review it at least once a month; active traders review their stops more often, typically weekly (or even daily).
I know traders who like to re-enter a position after getting stopped out if it reverses back above the trend line. For example, when Apple’s (AAPL) trendline broke at $38, it looked as though the institutional world was in the early stages of major distribution in Apple. Once the stock returned to that trendline, we knew that was not true. It’s worth occasionally missing a few points to avoid riding a profitable position back down to break-even or worse.
When a stock breaks support, it suggests that the thinking about the company may have changed. Perhaps the company’s prospects are no longer so rosy and the stock no longer looks cheap at that price.
Whatever the reason, a break in support often precedes a further move south.
On the other hand, buying a stock right above support, with a stop just below, offers good risk/reward potential. Downside is limited to a few points, while upside may be substantial.
When a stock is rising, its moving average will rise, albeit at a lag. Once the stock begins to falter, its price will fall much faster than the moving average. When the share price crosses the average to the downside, that’s a very powerful sell signal.
Since the market peaked in March 2000, every major disaster — from Lucent (LU) to Global Crossing to WorldCom — has given clear 200-day moving average sell signals.
Regardless of what your original stop loss was, you should raise it as a position rises. Each time your stock enters a new “decade” ($30s, $40s, $50s, $60s, etc.), you increase your stop loss proportionately. You can adjust the stop loss on the basis of the weekly or even monthly closing prices. This makes it more likely you’ll get the benefit of a rising stock price for as long as possible, while still getting downside protection.
When moving your stops up, it’s a good idea to avoid using round numbers (i.e., $60, $70, $80), because option strike prices can temporarily “pin” a stock to those levels on expiration day each month. There’s a tendency for stocks to trade to just below these levels and then snap back. For lower-priced stocks (say, under $20), try using weekly increments of $5 instead of “decades.”
How can you avoid giving back all of your hard-won gains? I use the 25% net gains rule. Let’s say you owned Amazon.com (AMZN) in 2003, near $20. By the end of the year, the stock was above $60, giving you a 40-point gain. How do you preserve your profits if the stock reverses? Determine in advance how much of those profits you are willing to give back. I never like returning more than 25% to the house. When the stock reverses enough so that 25% of those gains have slipped away, that’s your sell signal. In the Amazon example, that was a 10-point move down to $51. That’s my liquidation point.
The goal of this stop loss is simple: Give the stock enough room to trade, but do not give back all of your profits.
If you buy a stock at $17, and all it does is fluctuate between $15 and $20 for the next 10 years, there’s probably a better place to deploy your capital. You can always come back to the name and buy in when it finally breaks out over $20.
When you purchase a security, decide in advance how long you are willing to hold it. Give it enough time for catalysts to develop. Six months to a year should be sufficient. The market is far less efficient than many people — especially academics — assume. If your stock is really undervalued, the rest of the world will eventually figure it out.
What you don’t want to do is sell something out of boredom. Too often, this seems to happen just before a stock takes off.
There’s a reason flight attendants show you where the emergency exits are before takeoff. The same thinking should apply to investors. Prudent investors have a sell strategy in place before they get involved with a stock. Using any of these stop strategies helps keep your emotions out of the process when an investing emergency arises.
Posted: 15 Oct 2011 09:00 AM PDT
Here is an interesting interactive tool that lets you look at different year ranges based upon societal gains in income, and how they got distributed.
Fascinating to see the shift over the past century:
1917-81: Bottom 90% captured 69% of income gains
1982-2000: Bottom 90% captured 23% of income gains
2001-2008: Bottom 90% had income losses (negative gains)
Posted: 15 Oct 2011 07:00 AM PDT
There seems to be some debate as to what Occupy Wall Street should be focused on.
I have 3 suggestions — excerpted from my Sunday column in the Washington Post. You will note that these three are issues that both the Left and the Right — Libertarians and Liberals — should be able to agree upon:
There is much more, but you get the flavor of the piece. We shall see what resonance it will have amongst the crowd and OWS leaders . . .
Posted: 15 Oct 2011 05:15 AM PDT
A pioneer in a "dangerously hot research area," Drazen Prelec peers into the human brain while it makes decisions. In his corner of the new field of neuroeconomics, Prelec uses a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) machine to scan minds pondering the pros and cons of purchasing and selling products like Godiva chocolate and flash drives.
Prelec first provides a brief background on the emergence of his discipline, made possible by technological advances in measuring brain activity, and the recent introduction of psychology into economics. The convergence (or perhaps collision) of behavioral approaches and economics has led to a "sustained criticism of the rationality assumption in economics," says Prelec, most prevalent in game theory. So much current research, he says, "is a series of responses to the incorrect predictions of the rational normative model."
Some Nobel Prize-winning work has emerged in the past few decades from studying the differences between the way human beings actually behave and the way classic economics suggests. Prelec describes prospect theory, which captures in a formula how there is "something about the way our mind deals with numbers (so that) if you look at positive things, you have one way of looking, and at negative, it's a different way."
Using three case studies, Prelec illustrates how "neuroeconomics picks up some of these violations of rationality, trying to understand where in the brain we can get a deep understanding of what's going on." In a notable instance, subjects sipped different wines (through a straw) in the fMRI, and were asked to rate them. They were told they were drinking wine that ranged in price from $5 to $90. The "dirty trick was the $5 and $45 wines were the same, as were the $10 and $90 wines." Not surprisingly, "ratings were massively influenced by price," so the $90 wine was considered exceptional.
What was surprising, says Prelec, was that "the brain lies also." An area behind the forehead, the medial prefrontal cortex, which is associated with the perception of value, burst into more activity when the subject experienced the "$90" wine than with the exact same "$10" wine. It seems as if the very idea of quality, or value — often a marketing ploy — makes a product like wine more enjoyable.
Posted: 15 Oct 2011 05:09 AM PDT
BR: I believe it would be better if OWS stayed a non-partisan group, and not become a Democrat version of the Tea Party . . .
Move On Tries to Take Over Occupy Wall Street Protests
David DeGraw – one of the primary Wall Street protest organizers – just sent me the following email:
This mirrors what one of the original organizers of the "Occupy Trenton" protest told me: MoveOn attempted to set the agenda and pretend it was their event.
As I noted last week:
And as I pointed out Tuesday:
Posted: 15 Oct 2011 04:00 AM PDT
From Jan Baedeker:
Source: Classic Driver
Photos by Ferrari
Posted: 15 Oct 2011 03:36 AM PDT
Kinda cool (pointless) visualization of Yahoo mail. It shows geographic origination, spam sources, and trending key words in Subject lines.
Here’s the geographic origination chart:
Posted: 14 Oct 2011 10:00 PM PDT
Fukushima Radiation Hits Tokyo
CNN reports today:
Perhaps it is just some random contaminated bottles.
But as the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday:
The Journal also notes that these radioactive hotspots were not found through routine tests, but only because some residents walked around with geiger counters:
The Australian noted today:
And ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) reported yesterday:
As I've previously noted, Japanese government officials and high-level scientists have considered evacuating Tokyo. I hope and pray that these high readings are not the start of worse to come.
In related news, plutonium was found 28 miles from Fukushima and:
The Japanese government's response? To stop testing for plutonium, and to tell people they shouldn't use geiger counters to test for themselves.
The Japanese government has been caught blatantly under-reporting radiation levels in general, and Japanese professors are starting to fear for Japan's future.
|You are subscribed to email updates from The Big Picture |
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
|Email delivery powered by Google|
|Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610|