Where in the world is Mark.?

Did Mark throw in the towel in the mimfchal2005 event?

Or did he go to Aruba on vacation and disappear? The world wants to
know.... well, part of the world is curious...

Arne

Re: Where in the world is Mark.?

And where are all the normal investment discussions; has this forum
been abandoned for another, or has everyone been possessed by "mad
money" fever (stocks over funds)? Maybe it's a spam filter thing...

Here's one.

In article <>,
dumbstruck <> wrote:
>And where are all the normal investment discussions; has this forum
>been abandoned for another, or has everyone been possessed by "mad
>money" fever (stocks over funds)? Maybe it's a spam filter thing...
>


As I understand it, there are some fund families that let you transfer
money between funds in the same family without incurring fees. Although
more stable than the stock in an individual company might be, mutual funds
are still known to go up and down. If funds within the same family don't
go up and down in lockstep, then you can gain by transferring money from a
fund that goes up into a fund that goes down? Buy low and sell high
within a single family of mutual funds.

--
"No other major companies were working on [computer-controlled homes], and
that was exactly the problem. Microsoft does best when it has a
successful competitor it can copy and then crush." -- Marlin Eller,
"Barbarians Led by Bill Gates", 1998

Re: Here's one.

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
> In article <>,
> dumbstruck <> wrote:
>
>>And where are all the normal investment discussions; has this forum
>>been abandoned for another, or has everyone been possessed by "mad
>>money" fever (stocks over funds)? Maybe it's a spam filter thing...
>>
>
>
>
> As I understand it, there are some fund families that let you transfer
> money between funds in the same family without incurring fees. Although
> more stable than the stock in an individual company might be, mutual funds
> are still known to go up and down. If funds within the same family don't
> go up and down in lockstep, then you can gain by transferring money from a
> fund that goes up into a fund that goes down? Buy low and sell high
> within a single family of mutual funds.
>
Only if you can predict the future and can estimate in some way which
funds will go up and which down. The reality is that no one can do this
consistently and you are better off holding the whole market in low fee
index funds.

Re: Where in the world is Mark.?

"Arne" <> wrote in message
news:OCFue.18038$
> Did Mark throw in the towel in the mimfchal2005 event?
>
> Or did he go to Aruba on vacation and disappear? The world wants to
> know.... well, part of the world is curious...
>
Don't worry, he'll come back and roar when his portfolio is back on the top.
Then he'll be asking where in the world Arne is.

Re: Where in the world is Mark.?

Only if he thinks I'm not deducting my trade commissions....

And I wouldn't count on him getting back on top.

Arne

"TK Sung" <> wrote in message
news:DsXue.1719$
>>
> Don't worry, he'll come back and roar when his portfolio is back on the
> top.
> Then he'll be asking where in the world Arne is.
>
>

Re: Here's one.

In article <d9g5mj$qba$>,
David Wilkinson <> wrote:
>Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
>> In article <>,
>> dumbstruck <> wrote:
>>
>>>And where are all the normal investment discussions; has this forum
>>>been abandoned for another, or has everyone been possessed by "mad
>>>money" fever (stocks over funds)? Maybe it's a spam filter thing...
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> As I understand it, there are some fund families that let you transfer
>> money between funds in the same family without incurring fees. Although
>> more stable than the stock in an individual company might be, mutual funds
>> are still known to go up and down. If funds within the same family don't
>> go up and down in lockstep, then you can gain by transferring money from a
>> fund that goes up into a fund that goes down? Buy low and sell high
>> within a single family of mutual funds.
>>
>Only if you can predict the future and can estimate in some way which
>funds will go up and which down. The reality is that no one can do this
>consistently and you are better off holding the whole market in low fee
>index funds.

I would assume the funds stay pretty constant over the long term. It's a
gamble to make that assumption about the stock of an individual company,
but mutual fund isn't an individual company. So move money based on the
current NAV versus an average over a suitable interval, like a year.
When fund A goes above its year-long average and fund B goes below its
year-long average, you only lose money be transferring from A to
B if fund B keeps going down and never recovers.
--
"Tell me, Dr. Einstein, at what time does Boston arrive at this train?"

Re: Where in the world is Mark.?

"TK Sung" <> wrote
> Don't worry, he'll come back and roar when his portfolio is back on the
> top.
> Then he'll be asking where in the world Arne is.

Mark is a loser, a no learner. He has lost money for the past 2 contest, big
time I might add, and he's losing again. Mark sould put all of his money
into CD's and money markets, that is if he has any left.

Re: Here's one.

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
> In article <d9g5mj$qba$>,
> David Wilkinson <> wrote:
>
>>Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
>>
>>>In article <>,
>>>dumbstruck <> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>And where are all the normal investment discussions; has this forum
>>>>been abandoned for another, or has everyone been possessed by "mad
>>>>money" fever (stocks over funds)? Maybe it's a spam filter thing...
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>As I understand it, there are some fund families that let you transfer
>>>money between funds in the same family without incurring fees. Although
>>>more stable than the stock in an individual company might be, mutual funds
>>>are still known to go up and down. If funds within the same family don't
>>>go up and down in lockstep, then you can gain by transferring money from a
>>>fund that goes up into a fund that goes down? Buy low and sell high
>>>within a single family of mutual funds.
>>>
>>
>>Only if you can predict the future and can estimate in some way which
>>funds will go up and which down. The reality is that no one can do this
>>consistently and you are better off holding the whole market in low fee
>>index funds.
>
>
> I would assume the funds stay pretty constant over the long term. It's a
> gamble to make that assumption about the stock of an individual company,
> but mutual fund isn't an individual company. So move money based on the
> current NAV versus an average over a suitable interval, like a year.
> When fund A goes above its year-long average and fund B goes below its
> year-long average, you only lose money be transferring from A to
> B if fund B keeps going down and never recovers.

Suppose fund B was HSBC Japan Index Fund. This dropped below its 52-week
Moving Average in Dec 2000 at an NAV of 76. So by your rule you transfer
money from some other fund A into it.

Apart from a couple of brief blips above the MA it carried on going down
to 37 in May 2003, 3 1/2 years later. Then it rose decisively above the
MA in July 2003 at about 44. You would then transfer money back into
fund A for a loss of 42%.

If the original fund A had been HSBC Corporate Bond fund and you moved
out of it because it was above its MA in Dec 2000 at 132 you would have
missed its subsequent rise to 161 by July 2003 when it was still above
the MA. So you would have missed out on a 22% rise and made a 42% loss
instead. This fund, far from oscillating, carried on going up to 174 today.

In these cases it would have paid to sell when the NAV fell below the
average and buy when it moved above it, the opposite of your rule. Of
course there are other cases where your rule would have worked and still
others where neither rule would have worked and you would have been
whipsawed to death.

The problem is that future price trends are unpredictable so rules based
on an assumption about future trends, like your oscillation about a
mean, will only work occasionally and not often enough to pay off.

Re: Here's one.

MA's may or may not make you money going forward but they sure can help
minimize risk.
Any tool that's available to help control risk is probably worth looking at.
I like historic averages and sentiment. "They" usually don't want it until
everyone and their brother has made a nice profit owning it. This is just
about the right time to let them have mine.



"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:d9hr21$qsm$
> Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
>> In article <d9g5mj$qba$>,
>> David Wilkinson <> wrote:
>>
>>>Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <>,
>>>>dumbstruck <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>And where are all the normal investment discussions; has this forum
>>>>>been abandoned for another, or has everyone been possessed by "mad
>>>>>money" fever (stocks over funds)? Maybe it's a spam filter thing...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>As I understand it, there are some fund families that let you transfer
>>>>money between funds in the same family without incurring fees. Although
>>>>more stable than the stock in an individual company might be, mutual
>>>>funds are still known to go up and down. If funds within the same
>>>>family don't go up and down in lockstep, then you can gain by
>>>>transferring money from a fund that goes up into a fund that goes down?
>>>>Buy low and sell high within a single family of mutual funds.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Only if you can predict the future and can estimate in some way which
>>>funds will go up and which down. The reality is that no one can do this
>>>consistently and you are better off holding the whole market in low fee
>>>index funds.
>>
>>
>> I would assume the funds stay pretty constant over the long term. It's a
>> gamble to make that assumption about the stock of an individual company,
>> but mutual fund isn't an individual company. So move money based on the
>> current NAV versus an average over a suitable interval, like a year.
>> When fund A goes above its year-long average and fund B goes below its
>> year-long average, you only lose money be transferring from A to B if
>> fund B keeps going down and never recovers.
>
> Suppose fund B was HSBC Japan Index Fund. This dropped below its 52-week
> Moving Average in Dec 2000 at an NAV of 76. So by your rule you transfer
> money from some other fund A into it.
>
> Apart from a couple of brief blips above the MA it carried on going down
> to 37 in May 2003, 3 1/2 years later. Then it rose decisively above the MA
> in July 2003 at about 44. You would then transfer money back into fund A
> for a loss of 42%.
>
> If the original fund A had been HSBC Corporate Bond fund and you moved out
> of it because it was above its MA in Dec 2000 at 132 you would have missed
> its subsequent rise to 161 by July 2003 when it was still above the MA. So
> you would have missed out on a 22% rise and made a 42% loss instead. This
> fund, far from oscillating, carried on going up to 174 today.
>
> In these cases it would have paid to sell when the NAV fell below the
> average and buy when it moved above it, the opposite of your rule. Of
> course there are other cases where your rule would have worked and still
> others where neither rule would have worked and you would have been
> whipsawed to death.
>
> The problem is that future price trends are unpredictable so rules based
> on an assumption about future trends, like your oscillation about a mean,
> will only work occasionally and not often enough to pay off.
>