Only within your frame of reference. You seem to believe that his decision not to down-average supports your contention that he believes those stocks which are below his purchase price are "losers" even though he refuses to admit it. That's a rather idiotic argument. A decision not to down-average may be nothing more than an aspect of a strategy. It may have nothing to do with one's evaluation of the fundamental value of a company and its shares. If that bothers you so much, the more interesting question is why?
He won't do it, axe. I hate to admit it, but i'm getting a feel for mr. market. But I would ask mr. market the following: I believe that you have beaten the market for the last 12 years. Would it be possible for you to share with us your returns for each year? I'm not asking for concrete proof, nor am I asking for the amount of money you trade with, just your % returns for each year. Please post it on ET, and i'll believe whatever you tell us.
No, it's because he says his model puts him into stocks which can gain 15%. So, if one of his stocks that the model chose is down 30% from his entry, but he maintains the stock will yet exceed entry by 15%, then his potential is greater in that stock than in taking on a new position. One would think that would be more attractive than not. I raised the question for him to answer. It's a reasonable question. If the answer is that it's not part of his strategy, he can surely say so if he wishes, and if he does, I would even appreciate knowing why that's so. All I concluded in my post was that his actions seemed to be in conflict with his statements. That's the way it appears to me, and, frame of context certainly is mine, it's the frame of context I deal with, just as you deal with yours. mm can state his frame of context in response to my question. I will ask questions based on how things seem to me, mm will make statements as things seem to him and you will make statements as things seem to you. Speaking of which, let me correct your perception: I did not state that his positions were losers by virtue of his not averaging down. I wrote that his not averaging down suggested that his public statements were not in accord with his actions. If indeed they are not losers, it seemed to me he'd view that as a buying opportunity, a la Buffett. If he didn't view them as bargains, that raised another question for me. In any event, let the man answer the question that was posed to him, and was not posed to you. I don't know why you think my asking a question is evidence of this 'bothering me so much' and why you feel the need to use derogatory descriptive terms such as "idiotic" to describe a reasonable question. If you don't think I have a reasonable question, then I suppose you could put yourself through the same standard you wish to impose on me, and ask yourself why it bothers you so much that you have to respond by deriding my question?
Because you keep asking it. You judge his strategy by your own value system, which finds it lacking, then you claim that there's a problem with it. The problem is not with his strategy but with your value judgements. MM's strategy has been employed for decades. If he doesn't respond to you, perhaps it's because of your "gotcha" attitude. As for what you said and what you didn't say, I suggest you review your own posts.
Yeah....I pretty much already know this. He runs for cover whenever you press for details. Now think about this.... you have this guy here who takes every opportunity in the world to BRAG about his wins, and yet always RUNS when you ask him for the details. Wouldnt you expect Mr M to jump at the opportunity and post his trades for all to see, and prove us all wrong??? Of course you would. But he never does. This speaks volumes peace axeman
After thinking on this....I think this is how mrmarket might answer, and I am not his spokesman. It was fun this morning but in all seriousness, I want to interject. I hope I am not putting my nose in where it does not belong. I imagine it might be like this....and remember I do not necessarily agree with all of it... To overweight a position in a stock to average down from its original entry granted would change the net target to a lower zone based on the average price paid. However, to add available dollars to this seemingly good value(even better than entry) would not be the best use of money compared to the higher percentage of new picks that net the 15% quicker. Granted, mrmarket actually has exited at a loss, but I worry his judgement might be agonizingly skewed when he MUST do it again and start with 1 winning position 2,3,4,5...I am huge, 6,7 ,8 meat and cheese me baby, 9,10,11,12....lets play football, 13,14,15,16, hot or not?,.......17....18...19 Wharton.....20,21,22,23,24,25....powder my hands I am going for a bench of 390 lbs, 26,27,28,29,30.....lets take a warm shower.....31,32,33,34.....etc........etc... Michael B. By the way.....Have you heard? ELECTRICSAVANT IS ENORMOUS! i'LL MATCH MY iq TO ANY ET'r.
I don't know about 12 years.....that seems a little excessive....but since last year the guy has been dead on with his INVESTMENTS...others would trade in and out and do it differently but give credit where it is due....his INVESTMENT strategy for the last year has been pretty remarkable..if you really want proof i can send it to you....i joined his site in an attempt to burn him....but he sends these predcitions , the story and the target and has been very successful
Exactly. That is why I humbly ask mr. market to post his returns here. He doesn't need to do anything more then tell us what he returned, and I for one, will believe whatever he says. I fully expect there to be down years. Mr. market? Can you please post your results? You've already said you've beaten for 12 years, just tell us the figures!