I make mistakes all the time. But what's important and key is I avoid the big mistakes. And when I'm wrong, I don't stay wrong for long. Flexibility or the willingness to admit you've made a mistake and correct it is how you stay in the game and succeed for as long as I have.
More from Mark Minervini
More from Markminervinilearnings
Key attributes of my trading this year:
1. Concentrated positions
2. Selective use of Leverage
3. High turnover
4. Super tight risk control
5. Selling into strength
6. Big positions almost exclusively directional
7. De-risking trades and free rolling often
1. Concentrated positions
2. Selective use of Leverage
3. High turnover
4. Super tight risk control
5. Selling into strength
6. Big positions almost exclusively directional
7. De-risking trades and free rolling often
JUST RELEASED - April U.S. Investing Championship results YTD - https://t.co/mN2Kl28gqh
— Mark Minervini (@markminervini) May 19, 2021
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?