Peanut's Potent Plethora of Profit

[skiracer]

Ski, you seem concerned that I am cutting myself short. It was purely a technical trade. This is what I looked at... I traded my plan: in and out in 1 day with no regrets:

It was a great play and I was just suggesting another line of thought that you might want to consider that is completely safe and gives you the opportunity to make more with practically no downside risk.
But is was a great play and that is all that counts.
I'm really not concerned that you are cutting yourself short but only that an associate might have the opportunity to make more money.

[Rob]

I was just suggesting another line of thought that you might want to consider that is completely safe and gives you the opportunity to make more with practically no downside risk.ake more money.

Ski, for what it's worth, I understand exactly what you are saying and am in agreement. In fact I have agued for years that $$$Mr. Market$$$ would make more money by setting stops under his stocks when they hit their targets rather than selling them.

There is one way, though, that such stops can hurt you, and that is a large and sudden gap down in price, which is more likely to happen to a position when held overnight, but can also happen during regular trading. Admittedly that's not a huge risk, but that also depends on the stock itself.

[peanuts]

Here's the ones I like the best.. (longs)

AP ATW TIII TGIS DXPE SMSI AMKR WDC RMIX

I'll be taking a closer look for entry points...

I hope that your limit TGIS order filled, Webs

[peanuts]

Ski, for what it's worth, I understand exactly what you are saying and am in agreement. In fact I have agued for years that $$$Mr. Market$$$ would make more money by setting stops under his stocks when they hit their targets rather than selling them.

There is one way, though, that such stops can hurt you, and that is a large and sudden gap down in price, which is more likely to happen to a position when held overnight, but can also happen during regular trading. Admittedly that's not a huge risk, but that also depends on the stock itself.

I could use some help maximizing my gains; but I also trade alot of stocks, so if I have to manage alot of positions, I will most likely lose my edge on the rest of my trading...

Besides, I do my own taxes, so it makes it very fast and easy to enter my positions in equal blocks of shares when filing them. I usually walk out of a position in the same way, more or less, than the way I enter.

[peanuts]

MT portfolio buy

I have triggers set to buy at new highs. AP may become huge, but I don't know when that will be. I just saw an intraday opportunity that I could not pass on.

Interesting. I just established my first position in AP in my MT account. The trade trigger went off and I got the email alert right now.

Got the shares at $34.62

The trigger was set to go off if a trade was recorded at a price greater than or equal to $35.25, and it generated a buy limit @ $34.75. For some reason I got the whole position at $34.62.

This is a "set it and forget it" type of trade.

[Tatnic]

[QUOTE=peanuts;68227]I could use some help maximizing my gains; but I also trade alot of stocks, so if I have to manage alot of positions, I will most likely lose my edge on the rest of my trading...

Taking a profit is never a bad thing, esp. if it fits your style. YOur trade on ap was pretty decent and it took advantage of an oversold reaction. If you held it longer expecting a bigger gain you might have ended up with a losing trade.

Do you or anyone else here for that matter set your position size based on max. allowable loss? I think too many don't use the best position size for their portfolio, ie they trade too large. For instance if one knows ahead of time that their max. allowable loss is capped 1%~2% of their portfolio, and just for arguement's sake lets say that number is $1000. So if one is trading a stock with a price of $50, and will call "uncle" after a stop loss of 15% (depends on the volatility of the stock), then the position size should be 130 shares, give or take. If the stock is very volatile it might make sense to use wider stop losses with smaller position sizes so the max. absolute dollar loss is still the same. For instance, ACOR should require wide stop losses of 30%~40%, which require a much smaller position size.

Now, deciding when to sell is the harder part of trading. Peter Lynch's approach was to hold as long as the fundamentals are still intact, but I think he shaved his positions as they grew larger so as to keep them at a certain size relative to the entire portfolio.

Some use a set target like ernie, of 15% or whatever. Nothing wrong with that. I think Dr. Jack uses a certain absolute dollar amount as a guide or at least that's what I've seen so far.

Others use trailing stops and sell off shares as the position rises.

Technical traders think they can pick targets based on a chart but I think they're fooling themselves in the long-run.

I recently saw one guy who buys a new stock each month and sells one..his selling is strictly time related. Pretty interesting to say the least.

David Swenson (Yale's endowment manager) recommends keeping a certain balance between holdings and constantly adjusting the mix to keep them in balance. By doing that you're buying stocks when they're cheap and selling them when they're expensive, same for bonds. There's a million different opinions and approaches but Swenson's is one of the simplest ones.

[peanuts]

Santarus

This one makes me think of Christmas. I just bought a bunch at $8.73

ticker: SNTS

Santa R Us

[Websman]

I hope that your limit TGIS order filled, Webs

Nope...I missed it.

[peanuts]

Interesting. I just established my first position in AP in my MT account. The trade trigger went off and I got the email alert right now.

Got the shares at $34.62

Very interesting. Here's the earnings report that AP filed last night. Looks to be a HUGE day in AP.

Dee Ann Johnson
(412) 456-4410

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PITTSBURGH, PA October 18, 2006. . . . . Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation (NYSE: AP) had sales of $79,069,000 and $233,413,000 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2006, respectively, against sales of $56,632,000 and $177,873,000 for the comparable prior year periods. Net income for the three months ended September 30, 2006 and 2005 was $6,644,000 or $0.68 per share and $2,109,000 or $0.22 per share, respectively, and for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 and 2005 was $18,773,000 or $1.91 per share and $6,759,000 or $0.69 per share, respectively. Income from operations approximated $9,808,000 and $26,670,000 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2006 against $2,945,000 and $9,300,000 for the comparable prior year periods which included proceeds from settlement of the Corporation’s 2004 flood-related business interruption insurance claim of $2,320,000 for the nine months ended.
Continuing sales and margin improvement resulting from the worldwide demand for rolling mill rolls was the principal reason for the significant increase in the results of the Corporation in both the quarter and year to date. Income from operations is expected to be strong for the balance of the year.

[Lyehopper]

Info to help further your "steel" education....

steel of old was not galvanized. All modern cars are made from galvanized sheet metal. This is also the bone of contention with car makers since its the galv. steel that has the highest tariffs and they're fighting tooth and nail to get those tariffs removed.

Really? The DeLorean and the Saturn are the only cars I know of which were made of non-rusting body parts...

Peanuts.... Here's a marketwatch article on the (zinc) galvanized sheet steel tarrifs that Tatnic was talking about.

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7B4B771725%2D9090%2D4ED7%2DB4C2%2DBD51D829280E%7D&source=blq%2Fyhoo&dist=yhoo&siteid=yhoo

Also read the following report, especially the section titled "Materials" Page N-14....

http://www.corrosioncost.com/pdf/motorvehicles.pdf

[peanuts]

Thanks for the articles

Peanuts.... Here's a marketwatch article on the (zinc) galvanized sheet steel tarrifs that Tatnic was talking about.

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7B4B771725%2D9090%2D4ED7%2DB4C2%2DBD51D829280E%7D&source=blq%2Fyhoo&dist=yhoo&siteid=yhoo

Also read the following report, especially the section titled "Materials" Page N-14....

http://www.corrosioncost.com/pdf/motorvehicles.pdf

I think that you are looking for a fight with me, and I don't really understand your bone of contention. As addressed in the article (partly), and as I said before, "The DeLorean and the Saturn are the only cars I know of which were made of non-rusting body parts" - cars today are still rusting. It has been through the advancements in material sciences, coatings, and steel technology which have reduced the rate of oxidation between cars produced in the 70's compared with today, as I have stated. That was billyjoe's original statement (why cars in the 70's rusted faster than today). Tatnic said that all modern cars are made of galvanized steel today. I stated a fact the DeLorean and the Saturn are NOT made of galvanized steel.


I get the feeling that you're pissed at me, and you are looking for a fight, and are putting words into my mouth, and are trying to squash me- and I don't like it, Lye. Knock it off, bud

[Tatnic]

I think that you are looking for a fight with me, and I don't really understand your bone of contention. As addressed in the article (partly), and as I said before, "The DeLorean and the Saturn are the only cars I know of which were made of non-rusting body parts" - cars today are still rusting. It has been through the advancements in material sciences, coatings, and steel technology which have reduced the rate of oxidation between cars produced in the 70's compared with today, as I have stated. That was billyjoe's original statement (why cars in the 70's rusted faster than today). Tatnic said that all modern cars are made of galvanized steel today. I stated a fact the DeLorean and the Saturn are NOT made of galvanized steel.


I get the feeling that you're pissed at me, and you are looking for a fight, and are putting words into my mouth, and are trying to squash me- and I don't like it, Lye. Knock it off, bud

this would be a much more interesting discussion if it focused on the distinct possibility that steel makers are gonna lose their tariff protection. Seems like this would be too much for the u.s. steel industry to take, and it would come on top of slowing economic growth and china exports. Seems like some good shorts should present themselves, not only in the steel makers but their suppliers as well. And on the other side of the coin, if those tariffs are removed, the auto makers should be good on the long side. Not gonna do much until it becomes more apparent and it may be well after the elections before anything is done, if at all.

[peanuts]

this would be a much more interesting discussion if it focused on the distinct possibility that steel makers are gonna lose their tarif protection. Seems like this would be too much for the u.s. steel industry to take, and it would come on top of slowing economic growth and china exports. Seems like some good shorts should present themselves, not only in the steel makers but their suppliers as well. And on the other side of the coin, if those tariffs are removed, the auto makers should be good on the long side. Not gonna do much until it becomes more apparent and it may be well after the elections before anything is done, if at all.

good point. If and when this happens, Steel might be a good short. UNTIL that happens, it is obvious that Steel is experiencing an unusually strong advantage of pricing for these products with nothing except a possible tarrif-lift to stand in the way of continued revenue growth and favorable market prices. Which means that TODAY Steel is a great long.

[Tatnic]

good point. If and when this happens, Steel might be a good short. UNTIL that happens, it is obvious that Steel is experiencing an unusually strong advantage of pricing for these products with nothing except a possible tarrif-lift to stand in the way of continued revenue growth and favorable market prices. Which means that TODAY Steel is a great long.

Keep in mind that wall street always looks out about 3 to 6 months. So even though you may be right about today's conditions, they're already being discounted. I suspect that the market will anticipate the tariffs being lifted, but that's just a hunch. The only chart I've seen that is remotely bearish is the $stq....and that could go either way at this point. Too early to call it, but it bears close watch.

[Lyehopper]

I think that you are looking for a fight with me, and I don't really understand your bone of contention. As addressed in the article (partly), and as I said before, "The DeLorean and the Saturn are the only cars I know of which were made of non-rusting body parts" - cars today are still rusting. It has been through the advancements in material sciences, coatings, and steel technology which have reduced the rate of oxidation between cars produced in the 70's compared with today, as I have stated. That was billyjoe's original statement (why cars in the 70's rusted faster than today). Tatnic said that all modern cars are made of galvanized steel today. I stated a fact the DeLorean and the Saturn are NOT made of galvanized steel.


I get the feeling that you're pissed at me, and you are looking for a fight, and are putting words into my mouth, and are trying to squash me- and I don't like it, Lye. Knock it off, bud

That is not my intent.... And I am in no way "pissed at you".... How could you read my last post and think that? I just wanted to share some research with you.

It is a fact that the alloy of the mild steel used in car bodies in the "70's" and today are the same, the reason that car bodies today don't rust out as badly is not due to a higher iron content in the steel as you have stated (you did say that didn't you?) but because the sheet steel is now galvanized. I admit that I didn't know that till Tatnic posted what he did.... and as I did some research I found that it was indeed the case and he was right on target.... btw, did you read the info I linked?

Why are you so defensive? Are you ever wrong?.... Oh sorry, that was a stupid question....

I've been harping on Steel for a while now- and have been 100% right every time, if I might add