[kero]

Hi people,

I hope everyone is fine here. I've been aside from here for some time, because I had to much work. But I kept working on my trading skills, and for the first time since I started, I'm seeing my portfolios beginning to have a shape which looks like a bull trend.

Now, I'm still working on my system and, more and more, I ask myself about sectors. To put it simple: I'm having the feeling that including the sectors into the decision making raises more problems than it helps. So, I wonder what you think about that.

More specifically, here are the problems I'm seeing:
- it takes a lot of time to consider and define sectors trends and their relative strenght. As a weekly work, it is quite an investment. This wouldn't be a problem if this investment were efficient, but:
- really often, the more interesting stocks in a sector start their bull/bear trend before the whole sector gives clear signs of a new trend evolution. I often feel as I miss an interesting move, because of sector considerations.
- worse: a lot of stocks don't follow the general move of a sector. That can be because they are on some "niche"-economic sector, it can be because their activity can't be really classified in classical sectors, and so on... The result is that I miss interesting moves in which I could have been.
- in the European market, it isn't easy to find accurate data about sectors. At the moment, I use the Stoxx Europe 600 and Stoxx Europe TMI series. This means I can only have an insight at the level of the "Super-Sectors" and "Sectors" in the ICB classification. I haven't any way to work with "Sub-Sectors". Which is not cool, because the Super-Sectors and Sectors are still quite broad classifications.

All of this is making me thinking that all the work I put in sectors studying is maybee quite useless, specially in respect to the practical result it gives.

What do you think about that ?