Quill,
‘Simon Says’ was your invention/discovery whose value I saw, but began to immediately tweak. You’ve adopted some of those changes and rejected others. Not a problem. No investor does things the same way as anyone else. I emailed you this latest tweak. But I think it deserves wider scrutiny.
Some background: Whether you call yourself an ‘investor’ or a ‘trader’, whether you depend on ‘technicals’ or fundamentals’ (or both) to make buy/sell decisions, those decisions --hopefully-- are consistent and evidence-based, and not just spur of the moment guesses or unquantifiable “convictions”. If each factors in a chart is given given equal weight and a given a binary score, then it should be possible to rank stacks and ETFs according to their likelihood of following through on what seems to be their next move, be that up, down, or sideways.
So here’s a chart of LI, a Chinese car maker.
STO has turned up. So, score +1 for that fact. Ditto MACD. Another +1. Ditto SAR. +1. The candle has turned green. Another +1. The candle is a doji. A fifth +1. Final score? +5. The scoring system predicts that LI could be bought at tomorrow’s open, with this caveat. Its fundamentals would need to be vetted.
(Though the company is currently unprofitable, its financials aren’t worrisome, and earnings are forecast to grow by 46%/yr.)
By contrast, here’s the chart for Ford, which I’ll leave to you to score. But I’d suggest that F merits a ‘PASS’.
