Forbe's: stops are "gimmicks"

Discussions about Money Management and Risk Control.
Post Reply
stamo
Roundtable Knight
Roundtable Knight
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 5:27 pm

Forbe's: stops are "gimmicks"

Post by stamo » Wed Jan 21, 2009 9:26 am

Interesting article in Forbe's mag. (Feb. 2, '09) that puts down trailing stops.

They mention Chuck LeBeau’s smartstops site and they (Forbe's) are generally negative on trailing stops. (I certainly favor them in trading.)

Here’s a link: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0202/040.html and the beginning:

“Now that the market has crashed, online outfits are scrambling to sell gimmicks that promise to limit future losses. If only investing were so simple.â€
Last edited by stamo on Wed Jan 21, 2009 11:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

LeviF
Roundtable Knight
Roundtable Knight
Posts: 1428
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 12:24 pm
Location: Des Moines, IA
Contact:

Post by LeviF » Wed Jan 21, 2009 9:37 am

The article comments are pretty negative. Even Chuck put a word in.

stamo
Roundtable Knight
Roundtable Knight
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 5:27 pm

Post by stamo » Wed Jan 21, 2009 9:44 am

Thanks, levijean. I read it in print and just linked to the article (skipping the comments including Chuck's). He's a good guy.

adamant
Roundtable Knight
Roundtable Knight
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 1:20 am
Location: Norway

Post by adamant » Wed Jan 21, 2009 11:23 am

"Problem one is the randomness of the stock market. "

Is it random?

"Contrary to what stop-loss salesmen might tell you, a stock you buy for $20 that falls to $16 is just as likely to go back up as it is to continue falling."

Is it really?

Great comeback by Mr LeBeau btw:

"Regarding his example of selling that house at $180,000. that was probably a good idea. You could buy it back now for $100,000 or less."

Post Reply