Recent Posts

[YEP!I had bought 3000 @ 0.235, just sold at 0.32 : 40%Not big in $$$ but good percentage gain.]

YEP!

I had bought 3000 @ 0.235, just sold at 0.32 : 40%

Not big in $$$ but good percentage gain.

dell-a-lou (19.11.2015 17:12):

Thank you for your reply.
This was not on their website last night, and appeared on my broker site only around noon today.But it seems that some people knew. 

I am always afraid of biotechs, especially if they do not have too many products already bringing good income.

The MCNA seems to be their only drug in their "pipeline".
I cannot judge the product, but the advisory Committee members are not always free from influences.

It disappointing for the investors, but imagine for the searchers who worked so hard.

At this point, I might buy a few hundreds, in case the FDA would make a different decision.

Hello Louise,

Telesta had an hearing yesterday with the FDA and the results turned out to be negative.

See the press release available today:
http://www.telestatherapeutics.com/cms/phpPGfCZT.pdf

Biotechs have always been tricky and can make this kind of bump when they get bad news 

[This does not take away my admiration for SSP.]

Can anyone explain what could explain the terrible  drop of TST yesterday?
This is so sad for SSP UPM v1 and UPM v2 portfolios, that were saved by the MTI DOWN signal.
The last news
http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/telesta-therapeutics-inc-announces-results-of-annual-general-meeting-of-shareholders-550521411.html
seemed pretty harmless.

I was lucky enough to have stayed out: I am always prudent with penny stocks, and still more with the biotechs, and the Valeant story that was pulling all bio stocks down.

So when the order came in, I "vetted" it forwards and backwards:
The Reuters' report was not too enthusiastic, but the mean 12 months target was 1.50 seemed good.

But since October 28 my dear ATR 14 indicator was showing a possible reversal, despite many BUY signals, (the RSI was at 93!), and gave a clear SELL signal on Nov 10, one day after it came into the portfolios.

Still I would like to understand how it could have fallen so much, 2 days after the news. I guess someone knows something we don't.

Maybe it is now a buy, but it will take months for the confidence to come back

This does not take away my admiration for SSP.


Louise

["Yet the truth is that embracing Western-style free markets and adopting technologies invented in the U.S.—not central planning—have lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese out of poverty."]

Hi DCA!

I was kinda throwing a bottle in the ocean, so I am happy that my message did not take longer to reach you.

But in order to reply,  I had to spend a few hours around the internet.
First I had to find what "First World type problems" were: I did not know this expression, but I love it.

I did not read Joseph Stiglitz's book, but read a lot about it.
There was a interview with him in Le Devoir, and I had also read in article (as you can imagine very biased against it) in the WSJ.

But now I listened the whole interview, for which I thank you.

And your last link brought me to read the entire novel from Jack Williamson, I who never liked science fiction books. But I enjoyed it... because it was short 
(Incredible what Internet gives us in a few seconds.)

I guess discussing about income tax is one of those "First World type problems".

But the question of inequality (not only but including the progressive or regressive income taxe rules) is part of my preoccupations. I have been spending a lot of time reading and discussing about it.

Although this was presented as good news, I was really shocked when I read that (for sure right before the elections) the Federal government finished with a huge surplus. A government should never have surplus, it is not a for profit enterprise.
A surplus at the cost of so many jobs that were cut, so many subventions that were not renewed, especially in the artistic domain.

Harper, I think, would be considered as too extreme right to be a Republican candidate to the US Presidency, and yet, "we" have elected him and might reelect him with a majority again.
I would feel so ashamed to be Canadian with such a Prime Minister, if I was not primarily a Quebec souverainiste.
So in the moment, at both levels, I have to live with 2 governments that I hate.

And as Stiglitz says: "It's the politics, stupid".

So back to Stiglitz, I have read the most negative article as I mentioned, in the WSJ.
Just an example:
"Yet the truth is that embracing Western-style free markets and adopting technologies invented in the U.S.—not central planning—have lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese out of poverty."

In order to satisfy American needs for consumption (but as cheap as possible), millions if Chinese left their rural villages to try and live in cities.
During that time, inequality in China was multiplied by such a factor that (difficult to believe), it is now greater then in the US!
But more then 50% of Chinese still live in rural areas, and they are doing much worst then before (at least relatively).

This without mentioning that in order to supply the US, China has the wildest pollution problem of the world, and "hundred of millions" will die of it.

But I do not feel "pity" for China, because they at least have now the money to save them-selves if they want to.

What about Africa! Black Africa.

Talking of ethical investing: I had bought lots of shares of Allana Potash. For the first time of my life, I had the feeling I was investing and not trading, I thought this was a beautiful project for Africans.
How it finished was so sad (you can Google around if you want to know more) and was such a disappointment for me.
Because I had traded the stock many times, at the end I finished with some gains in the 2 accounts in which I held it.
But the Potash will certainly not profit the Africans as it should have, appart of the problem that the administration and Israel Chemicals who finished by buying it just before it entered production, have been extremely unfair to the investors.
At the price Israël Chemicals bought it, I think it did it (like some drug companies do), only not to have the concurrence in India and China.

This was again the rule of the more money...

Let us hope that we find the right scenario, that will be fair, but still let enough room for individual initiatives and creativity.

Scenario 3: Rejected. "Humanoides" are not the answer, they would equate to your cartooned scenario 2.
Computers can be part of the solution, as long as they are not used as excuses ("The computer does not allow me to do this or that").

Scenario 1: whether we call it right wing, plutocracy, or what ever, has always existed. It is the economic Darwinism.

Some form of Scenario 2 is the only (and most difficult) way not only to reduce inequality, but to save the planet, on small and on large scales.

OK, I'll stop because I could go on and right if not a book at least a novel 

Thanks for you reply and the interesting information you gave me with your links.

Are we far from your initial post? Not that far, and for sure not out of topic.

Hi Louise,

I have been rather busy dealing with First World type problems so have not looked into the forum since last year.

Have read a book: The Price of Inequality. https://vimeo.com/45877301 is a link to a video interview with the author.

It is interesting that while there is debate in the US as to whether dividends and capital gains should be given preferential tax treatment here we simply live it.  Stephen Harper just gave me a ~$3000/year (and compounding) gift with the increase in the TFSA allotment but I wonder how many Canadians at the average household income of $47K will be able to make use of it?  Tax laws being that they let me balance out my income with my wife are interesting too.    Her average rate from mostly investment income is 6% while mine is 14% (self-employed) while I expect an equivalent salary income would be higher still.

Still, I do not expect any of the three scenarios to come to pass in a pure form.  Although, my sense of humour makes me like the idea of finding out that Jack Williamson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/With_Folded_Hands) was right.

D

Hello Louise,

You can check the thread about the Virtual $50,000 portfolio to see an example of sells and buys the same day. See the second post for the detailed calculations:
http://www.superstockpicker.com/forum/index.php?topic=182.0

I think your difference is in the timing of those sells and buys.

Here is what happens:
- we do our calculation on Fridays, using close prices, but only to determine what we keep, what we WILL sell and what we WILL buy (on Monday).
- The portfolios are untouched for the next day (I think that the day when you have different results than us) and all transactions take place at the close of this session, using the close price
- Monday evening, the portfolios content is updated. New stocks are in with a 0% performance (bought at the close price) and of course a weight of 1.

I summarize the timing:
- we generate the new orders based on Friday's close prices
- we buy and sell at Monday's session close

Practically, you would sell the stocks first during Monday's session and buy new shares accordingly based on market prices. If you can do this process very close from the end of the session, you will get prices (and performances) very close from what we show on the site.

And of course, you can also get better prices during the session than what we get at the close...

[fully invested]

Hi again,

I really wish that you will be able to reply to the questions I asked in my previous post.

This is the follow up, from Sunday(or Friday) to Monday Feb 23.
Today, I had 2 calculations systems for todays's results, after the sale of CXR and RIC and the buy of the new stocks: CXI and CRH.
The first one gave me exactly the same performance as yours: +2.4%
(Sure you could tell me that if it gave the exact same performance, then those were the right calculations, except that I assumed that CSR and RIC would be sold at the closing price of FRIDAY)
Because CSR went up about as much as RIC went down, my portfolio could approximately be OK, but if both had gone down by 3%, my portfolio would be in the red!

On the other hand, my new system gave me a performance MUCH lower then your: -0.18%, so it was clearly wrong.

Tonight (Monday), I have tried a few other ways to calculate, but I still never come to the performance that you show.

I really wish that you could give me a practical example, based on a value of a real portfolio that gold have had a balance of let's say $50000.00 on Friday.
1. How many shares of each of the old stocks would I have had?
2. How many of the other stocks (new buys and adjusted holds), should I have bought or sold.

All this assuming that at the end of the day (Monday), I would still be fully invested, which would mean no reallocation on Tuesday.

I accept the restriction, that is not very realist, that all transactions would have been done at the closing price.
How and when do you spread the product of the sales between the other stocks?
Louise

We look for Momentum and we follow the wave. That's why we always pick stocks that had a huge run in the months before.

I have noticed, since the time I follow you, and I am often a little bit scared, but as I said somewhere else, you have thought to me that instead of trying to "big low sell high" , it is often more profitable to buy high and sell still higher.

Still I notice a change in the attitude of the investors, who are less momentum buyers as previously.

What I particularly like in your system, is that you do not try to "buy the dips" and increase loosing positions.

Thanks for the attention,

Louise

1. It appears that CXI was one of the first symbols traded by our system back in 2006. So, the stock was relisted since then and we had kept the former description in our database. It will be corrected on the site tonight.

2. These are Price Momentum portfolios. We look for Momentum and we follow the wave. That's why we always pick stocks that had a huge run in the months before.

3. Pharma stocks had always been tricky for our portfolios. They tend to plunge if they release bad test results, and our worst performers have always been pharma... As the trend does not break before those dips, our system can not exit before it's too late...