|
Small Portfolio
|
XLF & IAU
|
11.65%
|
|
|
Position
|
Date
|
Return
|
Days
|
|
VG
|
10/27/2011
|
-35.87%
|
300
|
|
BT
|
1/4/2012
|
13.06%
|
231
|
|
SAI
|
5/30/2012
|
7.84%
|
84
|
|
XEC
|
6/5/2012
|
20.36%
|
78
|
|
DECK
|
6/15/2012
|
6.71%
|
68
|
|
CVX
|
7/5/2012
|
5.13%
|
48
|
|
RIMM
|
7/16/2012
|
-1.24%
|
37
|
|
UEIC
|
7/30/2012
|
22.92%
|
23
|
|
QSII
|
8/6/2012
|
7.21%
|
16
|
|
CECO
|
8/9/2012
|
1.08%
|
13
|
|
S&P
|
Annualized
|
4.11%
|
|
|
Small Portfolio
|
Annualized
|
9.48%
|
|
|
Large Portfolio
|
Annualized
|
17.93%
|
Rotation: selling CECO; buying FCX
The industry rotations are about as chaotic as anything I’ve
seen since I began this model 15 months ago.
FCX was a buy, then 10 days later a sell. CECO was a buy, then 10 days later a
sell. This is not normal at all.
What’s happening here is that CECO is in an economically
defensive industry and FCX in a bullish liquidity driven industry. As such they are both extremely sensitive to
money flow betting between a deflationary spiral (favoring education) or an
inflationary surge (favoring mining).
Personally, I don’t think any rational person can claim to
know the answer here – perhaps not even uncle Ben Bernanke himself.
All we can do is follow the money as it chases its own tail.
As always, if FCX and CECO gap away from each other, that
would prevent the trade.
Tim
No comments:
Post a Comment