Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (3) | Ignore Thread Prev | Next
Author: Timoteo57 Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 6739  
Subject: Portfolio Mgmt question from a new Fool Date: 10/17/2011 1:18 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Hello fellow fools,
As a new member to this site, I wanted to pose my first ever question to the community.
I am struggling to find a balance between my use of specific criteria/rules for risk management, asset allocation, entry/exit points, etc and keeping my portfolio turnover to a minimum and having faith that a "good" stock will almost always recover, so hold on despite my "rules" telling me otherwise. Can one have a more quantifiable strategy with the latter(foolish approach), where I could monitor my positions without feeling I am just buying and holding?.
I am using a top down analysis approach:(global/national/markets/industry/sectors/stocks)then fundamental analysis with specific criteria for selecting holdings to go on my watch/buy lists, and that seems aligned with the general "foolish" approach. But, my use of technical analysis to determine specific buy/sell signals, based on a 3 tier confirmation method does not seem to jive with the general philosophy of the Fools, which I am interpreting as more of a long term buy and hold approach. Hence, my dilemna).
BTW, I am managing a small portfolio of about 25K and have a pretty good overall understanding of portfolio management and the financial markets in general with ongoing education on a variety of investment related topics and stategies. I still consider myself a newbie, as I have only been trying this for a few months.
How can anyone who desires rules and the application of analysis instruments with quantifiable risk management a highly desired part of my financial plan, justify this "foolish" approach?
I am not challenging the success experienced by many using this approach, but want to be more comfortable with it before implementing it in my own portfolio management.
Does it boil down to just a basic difference in philosophy? Longer term approach vs. a more short term approach? And if so, are there thoughts about managing risk, with specific guidelines for the longer term approach, besides the belief that if you picked a strong stock and believe it still is, it will be just fine in the long run?
Your thoughts are most appreciated.
Foolishly yours,
Timothy in Seattle
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post  
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (3) | Ignore Thread Prev | Next

Announcements

Pencils of Promise - Back to School Drive
"Pencils of Promise works with communities across the globe to build schools and create programs that provide education opportunities for children."
Post of the Day:
Macro Economics

Implications of the Ballad of Ted Plotz
What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Community Home
Speak Your Mind, Start Your Blog, Rate Your Stocks

Community Team Fools - who are those TMF's?
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and "#1 Media Company to Work For" (BusinessInsider 2011)! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.
Advertisement