I like to learn new ideas. Do you know of any trading system/ method that trades/suits all stocks, except ETFs/QQQ/Etc.? Do you understand why? Are ETFs also stocks? Is that logical at all? http://elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1978661#post1978661
Here is a new idea for you. F = I ( 1 + i)^n where F = Final Capital I = Initial Capital i = profit per turn n = number of turns per year. The following set of citations are where you are changing the relative importance of things for your own reasons. These changes in relative importance are your business and you can do what you want. What you do certainly flies in the face of "liking to learn new ideas" and that contradiction for you to continue to support is your business. Some traders are very successful; others are marginal and yet others fail. A method designed to suit all stocks is a low quality method. All stocks are not alike. With this recognition (try it on for mental size for a moment) then other considerations can be put on the table. n is the most powerful single variable contributor to the formula I typed. What small group of stocks or instruments would best be used to keep this variable at a maximum. For three systems I use the annual value of n is approximately 100, 7500, and 12. To get these to work my universes respectively are 150, 1 and 250 on average. the 150 could drop to 75 and the 1 could be 25 and the 250 could be adjusted to 1000 or so without degriedation of the values of i or n. For the first method, using and n of 100 and an i of 0.1, the maximum value of I is the product of the instrument price times 100,000. EFT's and QQQQ, as you have been told do not fit the universe criteria you have been given. This is old information to you. Nothing new to you. You do not understand why; that probably will not change for you. If you do get to understand that all stocks are not alike, you may be able to understand that sorting stocks is done. Here are some examples: ETF's and QQQQ baskets. Why did they make these baskets? The reasons are well known and the reasons are based upon the beliefs of those who follow the CW algorthms. I decided to eliminate the CW handicaps found in the CW algorithms with the model (pool extraction) I use for the methods I practise. You believe in using these handicaps. I do not simply because they may be eliminated by making use of alternatives. All of this is OT regarding the limitations of this thread.
ETF's trade like stocks. At the time a person buys/sells, they get in/out at the price executed intra-day, which is unlike mutual funds that have to calculate NAV at the close. By having to calculate NAV, a person could say sell at 10:00 am, and not really know what they're going to wind up until the end of the day with mut funds. I forsee mutual funds becoming less and less attractive in the coming years for retirement assets in qualified plans.
We all know and understand Jack posting on ET just for fun, nothing serious, really! I simply use his words for asking others' comments.
I do not think he (or Trader666) understands what high Beta means. He does not see the inverse relationship of baskets and high beta. Why he cannot get in his head how eliminating predicting, risk and restrictive money management is a pragmatic practice is beyond the pale. He is now complaining that words are used to respond even though I began my post mathematically to eliminate just the use of words and I interjected several cases as well.
If you've been at ET since 2003 and still don't know the difference between a stock AND an ETF you might be one of the dumber people here. And that is truly tough to do
Looks like you a very intelligent trader have extraordinary comprehension skills and abilities beyond trading!