HomePublicThe Successful Speculator


The Successful Speculator — 11 Comments

  1. Glad to hear my 50% exit from RGC this afternoon wasn’t en error. Would you suggest re-entering in the .13 range, or wait until the neckline is breached on a dialy or weekly closing basis? Thanks for your help here Spock, honestly, my default position is the no-brain or unused brain catergory… but learning to ignore my emotions.

  2. Thank’s Mr Spock!
    Get a life is very important or you end up missing a very vital thing,
    to actually enjoy living your life.

    I finally bought NXS today at 19,5 cad, very happy to do that.

  3. My experience is you better have a smaller, although decent amount and a limited number of position in stocks you really believe can go up 20 times or more. And do not watch gold or read websites like goldtent where they flip from bull to bear every 5 minutes.
    I have to admit sometimes I do not feel comfortable with some stocks, and I try do research deeper into them if they fit my criteria, if not I pass on. I like NXS and RGC due to the very high grade potential that is more present here than with some other names in portfolio, and some of these I do not hold. And remember investors that bought AMZN had to bear yearly volatility above 30%, so you need big stomach to hold onto potential big winners.

    • Goldtent posters and readers are for the most part…short term and day traders.

      At Spock we are taking a part of our PF and Investing in a speculative market with almost limitless upside “Potential” …different strokes for different blokes

    • I suspect the best number is about 30 (even more), unfortunately.

      I write as a crackpot hobbyist speculator, so take my comments with tonnes of NaCl. The reasons are poor. I am commenting around your comments, not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing, so much as using them for provocation.

      1. The father of the head of ASM once (1990s) told me you needed to hold at least a couple of dozen. You held them and if you had a decent selection a couple did really well even if the rest went under or stagnated. I have found his comments to be correct so far. By then he had had rather wild and interesting existence speculating in the markets then founded various companies in Nevada/BC/Mexico. He knew his way around.

      2. A statistician once told me that as a rule of thumb when N (the number of entities being studied) approaches 30 you can use parametric statistics as successfully as nonparametric statistics without checking for the existence of a bell-shaped type of distribution. I believe it is total unrigorous and unsupportable nonsense for me to put forward that this number of 30 has anything to do with Lou Wolfin’s comment (above) of holding 2 dozen or more, but my intuition tells me that there probably is some relationship between the two comments. It tells me that 30 is a big enough number for having some sort of control over quirky outcomes that aren’t normally distributed.

      I note that one of the reasons a few of us may do well in this market–even better than the pros–is because we are small and it is a total pain. On the one hand, they have the insider info as well as the professional ability to understand the public information for all the companies they can follow, and that may not be many companies. They may be able to manipulate and do sneaky things like PPs (which I may be topped out on and never did before last year). On the other hand I/we don’t move markets much. I can put in the low bid for something that they use to paint the tape down with. I am paid for the risk I take on all my 30+ stocks. I can have some sense via possibly not fully conscious pattern recognition of the 30 stocks even if I am a horrible amateur at all of them. I include chart patterns (not the official ones necessarily), my experience of the insiders, my vague knowledge of geology and local politics–as well of my vague sense of the overall world political economy (the sort of thing about which stormpilgrim provides running commentary) and my vague sense of what the Experts are saying. Sometimes I get it very right, sometimes very wrong, but the 2-dozen-or-more number seems to have been pretty helpful for me, perhaps just by luck though.

      I definitely do not buy stocks that I gag on no matter how highly recommended. (I have certain rules, which often work, but the gagging is often correct too.) I however failed to make a fortune by not buying Bre-X early (a total gag from early on) and continually taking partial profits on the way up.

      (I also stopped looking at the gold tent in part because my temperament is not in keeping with switching in and switching out. I am a longterm speculator. I also became intolerant of the maybe-this-maybe-that after all graphs and numbers without (I felt) rigorous outcome analysis. However different people are successful with different methodologies. Spock has described, above, his methods, which some people work to great success. Others I believe have demonstrated great success in employing opposite methodologies, such as buy high sell higher trend following, but they have do do it in a cold-blooded way in order not to be misled. Conversely some–especially the emotional and inexperienced amateurs–may buy stocks at what seem to be temporary lows, feeling they are being superiorly contrarian, only to see such stocks routinely keep going down.)

      My strength is that I know that I am stupid at this stuff. I have learned it many times over. The 2 dozen or more number has helped me though, or else it was luck.

      • Selling: There is high mental pain from selling at a profit, and then realizing later as the price moves higher that more profit was possible, and that money was left on the table for the next guy. Often the investor cannot stand the pain, and will buy back in at the highs. The mental pain is less if the sale is at a loss.

        Buying: The mental pain is high buying at or near the lows for a move down, especially in a bull market, when the stock is hated and herd is nowhere to be seen. That’s the sweet spot for an entry. The pain is less buying near the highs with the comfort of the herd, even though its a bad entry point, as the comfort of the what the herd is doing is more important than the entry.

        This is how human brains were hard wired through evolution over millions of years. Herding ensured survival as lone individuals on the savanna were easy meat for the animals. So their genes were not passed on.

        There is no switch to disable the above hard wired connections, as its genetic.

        So the closer one is to the day to day price action, the more prone they are to the hard wired outcomes above. Furthermore, listening to and then following the herd (general financial media) makes matters even worse.

        • I will not refer to the latest Spock recommendation by name since this section is public, but its price history over the past year or so enables some commentary.

          It was sold here, as I recall at a small profit spring of 2016. It went up considerably since then. We have bought it again. Not to be sure of counting our chickens to surely yet, I nevertheless see it being increasingly noticed elsewhere for reasons similar to the reasons it was recommended here, and suspect it will rise further, possibly much higher, soon.

          The result of our purchase and sale of it last year was probably to make a small profit which was used to buy other things with which we did rather well. We cannot be sure, but we are likely to make a short-term profit on this entity yet again. Nice.

          Yet there is a certain mentality that drives me nuts whereby people might have commented last year on how much this entity had gone up after they had sold it. In this case I’m not sure I saw the comments, but I have seen these sorts of comments about other stocks /events. There are times in my life when I have had relatives who have nagged and jibed and provoked. These comments about the missed opportunities become tiresome me the way the relatives’ comments have even though I don’t run the site and don’t always follow its recommendations. A little bit of such commentary (perhaps one bland emotionless comment with data) is great in my opinion, but a little bit goes a long way.

        • Even Newton had that problem back in 1720 when he invested in the South Sea Company. He first cashed in his stake for a very nice profit, but he watched with anguish, as his friends who had stayed invested were getting rich, so he dove back in at twice the price he had exited and this time invested his entire life savings of £20.000 at £700 a share. Soon after the price rose to 1000+ and the bubble burst.Game over.

Leave a Reply

error: Alert: Content is protected !!