Stock Markets

 | Contact us  |
 | Questions  | Log in        
buy sell stocks
stock market crashes
A subscriber sent me the below article, and I thought you might find it interesting.

Buy strength, or buy weakness? In the most concise way possible, that simple question marks a dividing line between most fundamental investors (at least of the value ilk) and most technicians (from the "breakout" camp). Given that, I ran a simple -- very simple -- test to see which strategy proved more profitable.

Using the S&P 500 as my sample set, my "buy strength" test had me buying any stock that had just made a 50-day high. Each trade took 10% of my equity, and I simply held for 30 days before selling. The "buy weakness" test was just the opposite. I bought any stock making a 50-day low, with all other parameters being identical. Both tests started in mid-1985.

The results were surprising. The strength test consisted of 1,583 trades, yielding a 10.35% yearly return, with a whopping 40.45% maximum drawdown. On the other hand, the weakness test had 1,592 trades, resulting in a healthy 25.28% yearly return, with a manageable 29.17% maximum drawdown.

So, go figure: Buying weakness trumped buying strength. For me, that's right up there with admitting golf is not a sport!

Q: What was the average win for each trade? Average loss?

A: The average win for each trade in the "buy weakness" was 11.14%. Average loss was 8.56%. Win percentage was 59.48%.

Q: What is maximum drawdown?

A: Maximum drawdown is the largest percentage drop from peak to trough (in terms of equity) before a new peak equity is achieved. For example, if you started with $100 and moved your equity to $200, then went down to $100 before getting to $201, you'd have a 50% maximum drawdown.

Q: Fascinating piece! But it begs the question ... if this [buying on weakness] strategy can return an average 25% per annum, then why bother with any other? In fact, why bother trading at all? Just set up automatic trades and sit back. Surely a trading strategy can't get any simpler than this, and yet the return is outstanding.

A: This really gets to the core, doesn't it? So let's stipulate that the point is well-taken. In fact, with a little tweaking, one could use this strategy and beat nearly 99.9% of all funds, mutual, hedge and otherwise. Still, people resist. Why?

Most traders/investors think they're better at trading than they really are. A purely mechanical strategy for them? It'd be a slap in the face, because they know they can easily do better than 25% per year! 

Remember, most traders/investors/fund managers are fundies. For them, the "story" is everything. No way a hedgie is going to tell their clients they bought XYZ simply because it was at a 50-day low. Shoot, if it were that easy, the client could do it on his own!

Even a 29% drawdown is a bit hard to take. Of course, if you're in the market long enough, that's pretty standard. But again, no one ever thinks that will happen to them. (See No. 1)

Directory | Privacy | Press room | Copyright 1998-2017 All Rights Reserved | Site Map | Disclaimer