An update on Fabian's criterion is that both the Dow and the S&P500 are
above their 39-week simple moving averages, so Doug (The mutual fund
wealth builder) Fabian would say it is time to buy in again to the US
market.
"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:dkhpj2$r57$
> An update on Fabian's criterion is that both the Dow and the S&P500 are
> above their 39-week simple moving averages, so Doug (The mutual fund
> wealth builder) Fabian would say it is time to buy in again to the US
> market.
His 39 week SMA makes more sense than "arcs" by Steve!
Gary C wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:dkhpj2$r57$
>
>>An update on Fabian's criterion is that both the Dow and the S&P500 are
>>above their 39-week simple moving averages, so Doug (The mutual fund
>>wealth builder) Fabian would say it is time to buy in again to the US
>>market.
>
>
> His 39 week SMA makes more sense than "arcs" by Steve!
>
>
Everything makes more sense than arcs!
David Wilkinson wrote:
> An update on Fabian's criterion is that both the Dow and the S&P500 are
> above their 39-week simple moving averages, so Doug (The mutual fund
> wealth builder) Fabian would say it is time to buy in again to the US
> market.
Thank you for demonstrating Fabian's whipsaws in real time.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Steven L. wrote:
> David Wilkinson wrote:
>
>> An update on Fabian's criterion is that both the Dow and the S&P500
>> are above their 39-week simple moving averages, so Doug (The mutual
>> fund wealth builder) Fabian would say it is time to buy in again to
>> the US market.
>
>
> Thank you for demonstrating Fabian's whipsaws in real time.
>
>
That's the problem with timing methods. Looking back at Fabian's
criterion from 14 Jun 1997 to date and using its buy and sell signals
for the S&P500 the overall result is a loss of 9.6% in just over 8
years. Between 1997 and 2000 it was about 28% up at one point but lost
it all and more in whipsaws, mainly in 2000-1.
Over the same period the S&P500 went from 893 to 1220, a gain of 36.6%
so Fabian's criterion was harmful to say the least. B&H wins by a mile!
I will check on Yanis' Y-process when I have more time.
David Wilkinson wrote:
> Steven L. wrote:
>
>> David Wilkinson wrote:
>>
>>> An update on Fabian's criterion is that both the Dow and the S&P500
>>> are above their 39-week simple moving averages, so Doug (The mutual
>>> fund wealth builder) Fabian would say it is time to buy in again to
>>> the US market.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you for demonstrating Fabian's whipsaws in real time.
>>
>>
> That's the problem with timing methods.
I think you mean "pure TA methods," not all timing methods.
Bob Brinker's Marketimer is a timing method too, but he uses a
combination of TA and fundamentals in his timing model. And his model
has definitely been more successful than Fabian's.
Frankly, the only part of Brinker's model that anyone really needs is
his calls on secular-bulls and secular-bears (what you call static
periods). A hypothetical American family that was fully invested in the
stock market during the secular-bulls of 1946-1968 and 1982-1999, and
fully in cash in the secular-bears of 1969-1982 and 2000-present, would
have built themselves a dynasty by now.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
David Wilkinson wrote:
> Steven L. wrote:
>
>> David Wilkinson wrote:
>>
>>> An update on Fabian's criterion is that both the Dow and the S&P500
>>> are above their 39-week simple moving averages, so Doug (The mutual
>>> fund wealth builder) Fabian would say it is time to buy in again to
>>> the US market.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you for demonstrating Fabian's whipsaws in real time.
>>
>>
> That's the problem with timing methods. Looking back at Fabian's
> criterion from 14 Jun 1997 to date and using its buy and sell signals
> for the S&P500 the overall result is a loss of 9.6% in just over 8
> years. Between 1997 and 2000 it was about 28% up at one point but lost
> it all and more in whipsaws, mainly in 2000-1.
>
> Over the same period the S&P500 went from 893 to 1220, a gain of 36.6%
> so Fabian's criterion was harmful to say the least. B&H wins by a mile!
>
> I will check on Yanis' Y-process when I have more time.
I ran the Yanis Y-process for the same time period also for the S&P500
and it gave a gain of 21%. This is still not as good as B&H but better
than Fabian.
I also ran AIM (Automatic Investment Management) for the same period.
With the initial cash equal to the initial share value the gain was 49%,
which is 12% more than B&H and with always less than half the portfolio
invested so it was much lower risk.
For AIM with Lichello's later recommendation of initial cash equal to
half initial share value, or initial cash making up 1/3 of the portfolio
and the rest in the S&P500, the gain was slightly more at 52%, now 15%
more than B&H. This seems to be a good recommendation for AIM.
I believe the Yanis Y method is from "Riding the Bull, Beating the Bear."
Could you give a short synopsis of this method? Thanks.
"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:dkltvm$nu7$
> David Wilkinson wrote:
>> Steven L. wrote:
>>
>>> David Wilkinson wrote:
>>>
>>>> An update on Fabian's criterion is that both the Dow and the S&P500 are
>>>> above their 39-week simple moving averages, so Doug (The mutual fund
>>>> wealth builder) Fabian would say it is time to buy in again to the US
>>>> market.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for demonstrating Fabian's whipsaws in real time.
>>>
>>>
>> That's the problem with timing methods. Looking back at Fabian's
>> criterion from 14 Jun 1997 to date and using its buy and sell signals for
>> the S&P500 the overall result is a loss of 9.6% in just over 8 years.
>> Between 1997 and 2000 it was about 28% up at one point but lost it all
>> and more in whipsaws, mainly in 2000-1.
>>
>> Over the same period the S&P500 went from 893 to 1220, a gain of 36.6% so
>> Fabian's criterion was harmful to say the least. B&H wins by a mile!
>>
>> I will check on Yanis' Y-process when I have more time.
>
> I ran the Yanis Y-process for the same time period also for the S&P500
> and it gave a gain of 21%. This is still not as good as B&H but better
> than Fabian.
>
> I also ran AIM (Automatic Investment Management) for the same period. With
> the initial cash equal to the initial share value the gain was 49%, which
> is 12% more than B&H and with always less than half the portfolio invested
> so it was much lower risk.
>
> For AIM with Lichello's later recommendation of initial cash equal to half
> initial share value, or initial cash making up 1/3 of the portfolio and
> the rest in the S&P500, the gain was slightly more at 52%, now 15% more
> than B&H. This seems to be a good recommendation for AIM.
>
>