Sector Selection / IWM comparison, part 5

[Timothy Clontz]

Part 1, without Billy's pivot help:
IWM 6.51%
XLU 0.91%
Difference -5.60%
Cumulative -5.60%

Part 2, with Billy's pivot help:
IWM -2.21%
XLK 0.00% (i.e. the trade never hit the stop loss and remained active)
Difference 2.21%
Cumulative -3.39%

Part 3, with Billy's pivot help:
IWM -1.79%
XLK 1.31%
Difference 3.10%
Cumulative -0.29%

Part 4, with Billy's pivot help:
IWM -2.11%
XLK 0.00% (i.e. the trade never hit the stop loss and remained active)
Difference 2.11%
Cumulative 1.82%

Part 5, with Billy's pivot help:
IWM -2.39%
XLK -2.00%
Difference 0.39%
Cumulative 2.21%

Pivot only cumulative (Part 2-5) 7.81%

***NOTE: updated the results as XLK got stopped out as well.

Once again, as shown in the difference between the first trade and the others, the test could not be conducted without Billy's pivots.

I'd also like to note that there is no way ANY model could reliably operate under unprecedented conditions. We have had, for the first time in history, a President actively trying to spook the markets. It was only a few days ago when his spokesman scowled into the camera and threatened, "Buy and hold; see what happens." This is completely outside of the parameters of any mechanical algorithm, and one that WOULD operate correctly here would quite likely not work any other time.

Given that, my test is still in the first of four stages (two long and two short sequences). We are still in the first long sequence, and comparison of my sector adaptation to the IWM baseline is still early. The relative performance at the moment could still just be odd luck.

While I'm happy to be the guinea pig, it's still early in a live beta test.

Tim