Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

drnico (94.82)

Why the minimum rules for which stocks are eligible sucks during a downturn

Recs

3

June 10, 2009 – Comments (2) | RELATED TICKERS: TGB , SORL

Out of my best four picks right now, three are not in CAPS b/c when i tried entering them at the time I bought them, specifically TGB with 63% gain, SORL with 69% and CHLN with 249% (all picked during mid-feb), they were under a 100 million cap or under 1.5 dollars. I find this to be a very stupid and stringent rule since I understand that the administrators do not want people speculating on penny stocks, but these three companies were good companies that all spent a considerable time above the limits, but because of the downturn I am not allowed to pick them in caps. I feel that the rules should be more flexible, especially since many of the best picks ever made are in small cap companies when they have fallen below these superficial levels. I hope more than one of you agrees with me

2 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On June 10, 2009 at 12:08 PM, EV38 (99.86) wrote:

I agree. Maybe it should be limited to longs only, or some sort of time weighted average that allows for positions on stocks that spend most of their time above the limits.

I would say the (mostly) PK and OB stocks that trade with 50K or less volume and bounce around like crazy with a large bid-ask spreads are much more cancerous to the CAPS game than ultra small caps.

Report this comment
#2) On June 10, 2009 at 1:06 PM, TMFJake (96.84) wrote:

This is a rule that we consider tweaking from time to time, particularly during the downturn.  My preference however would be to launch a separate MicroCAPS environment for companies that don't meet the CAPS 1.50/100M thresholds.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners