If you ask most people, theysay there are two types of people that in the .
There are '' -- those who to work in fundamentally sound companies for the long . Then there are ' ' -- those who buy for a , without much concern for the actual business.
The reality isn't as clear-cut. You see, if you aren't using the principles of bothand , then I think you're limiting your returns and increasing your losses.
But it's one thing to tell you this. I want to prove it to you with one of the most widely followedof the past decade -- Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL).
You're no doubt familiar with Apple. You might have even owned someat some point. Maybe you still do.
Apple is one of the mostcompanies on the planet. For years, the popularity of iPods, iPhones, and its computers caused and to soar. Since 2003, the company's annual has risen from $6.2 billion to $170.9 billion.
Meanwhile, until very recently, Apple carried no. Instead, it boasts a $145 billion pile. That's enough to pay every man, woman, and child in the United States $460.
And if you were anfocused only on Apple's -- a strong company with a pristine that saw soar -- you made a fortune. From 2003 until its peak in 2012, Apple's returned more than 9,661%.
If you focused just on, however, the joy of owning Apple ended in September 2012. Back then, the hit an al near $705 per . Sure, the company was still making hand over fist and was among the strongest firms on the planet. That didn't matter. Neither did the fact that Apple initiated a to return billions of dollars annually to its .
After its September 2012 peak, thefell 26%, despite the S rising 23.5% after that time.
But if you used a few simple trading signals, you could have avoided that drop altogether.
To be more specific, I am talking about 'relative strength.'
If you've never heard of, don't worry. It's simple to understand.
Ris found by calculating the percentage over the past six months for every and . You then sort these changes from high to low and assign the highest a rank of 100 and the lowest value a rank of 0.
Everyis assigned a rank based on where it fits into that range. I like to use 70 as the limit for and . If is greater than 70 (meaning a is rising more than 70% of the ), the or is a . I whenever the rank falls below 70.
You can see Apple'scharted below its in this graphic:
In this case, Apple's rfell below 70 back in 2012 (when the were still above $650), meaning it was time to . The result? A crystal clear signal that should get out.
That one signal could have saved anfrom losing thousands of dollars. What's more, this signal got them out of an underperforming during one of the best we've ever seen -- allowing them to put to work elsewhere.
It's proof that if you aren't usingin your , then you're missing one of the most important tools to beat the .
Now, Ibe the first to tell you that one example doesn't prove a system works.
That's why I want to tell you about a unique research project I've completed thatthis tool to the test.
The Maximum uses a few simple system (like ) and applies them to the that are currently held within the various StreetAuthority . These are the same held by Nathan Slaughter, Amy Calistri, Andy Obermueller, and other StreetAuthority experts... and that you may already own.
From there, I rank every single, top to bottom, filling a with up to 10 that rate the highest. The results are very encouraging. During a 10-year backtest from 2003 to 2013, my system showed a of 21.5% per versus a roughly 7% annual rise in the .
To learn more about this research, I encourage you to read this special report. You don't want to miss this opportunity.