Buying at Highs vs. Buying at Lows

Published on
8 October, 2018
Technical Analysis, Valuation, Trading
12 minutes

Buying at Highs vs. Buying at Lows

Featuring Louis Llanes

Is it better to buy stocks near their lows or near their highs? Louis Llanes, founder of Wealthnet Investments, answers this age-old question. He reviews the data and presents his conclusion. Filmed on July 31, 2018 in Englewood, Colorado.

Published on
8 October, 2018
Technical Analysis, Valuation, Trading
12 minutes


  • MS

    Michal S.

    24 10 2018 13:10

    2       0

    Fantastic analysis. It would be nice to also put the link to the slides next time in the video description, when I pause the player the slides are barely visible.

  • FC

    Frank C.

    22 10 2018 23:43

    1       0

    Great job, Louis. Very insightful.

  • SB

    Stewart B.

    14 10 2018 10:05

    0       0

    Great stuff. More analysis of past (Like this) would be appreciated. Perhaps some similar statistical analysis of end of quarter, and of month, out of hours and factor/effects analysis. Keep it short and punchy like this one.

  • PW

    Paul W.

    11 10 2018 22:23

    0       0

    Good stuff but why is something recorded in July only coming on to the website now?

  • CT

    Christopher T.

    9 10 2018 23:24

    2       0

    He's quickly becoming my favorite guest

  • GF

    George F.

    8 10 2018 19:07

    0       4

    Someone who does similar type analysis is John Dorfman :

    I think Ed Yardeni might also do debunking analysis.

  • ev

    ernie v.

    8 10 2018 12:57

    1       0

    For the average trader, this advice pretty much covers what actually happens to most stocks. The key is most. The ones you will land up with and do not perform like the examples are the ones powered by fake news. Just like Louis says. The regression to the mean is powered both by the fake news afterglow and those other trading factors [like profit taking] but not nearly as exciting as fake news. You can make a living shorting Crammer

  • AC

    Andrew C.

    8 10 2018 11:23

    2       2

    thanks Louis; this seems logical to me, but good to actually realize it. My opinion in brackets for your clarification..

    1 - wide distributions in beaten down stocks (because some companies will go bankrupt).
    2 - Narrower distributions for those at new highs (rising markets lifts all boats pretty much equally).
    3 - In bear markets companies at new highs are better (counter-trend, or these companies still profitable in pro economy)
    4 - bull markets shows beaten down companies outperforming market (as they are rising from a lower base & have a good economy to improve their balance sheets)

    can you clarify you took the bias out, by completely omitting companies that disappeared, so your SP500 probably had even less companies - perhaps closer to 400?

  • MP

    Mirjam P.

    8 10 2018 10:35

    2       0

    Great! More of this please. I‘m aware that Louis is not a pure technician, but still he shows how it‘s done. One thing that could have been explained in more detail: How exactly was the bias caused by changes in the index constituents removed or dealt with?