Never Average Down - موجّه تحليل بالذكاء الاصطناعي

Use this Jesse Livermore rule prompt to apply “Never Average Down” to a specific company. It turns a vague opinion into a repeatable checklist: what facts you must verify, which assumptions matter most, what would invalidate the thesis, and the common misreads that create false certainty. Expect a written output you can save: a thesis summary, key risks, and next-step questions for filings and earnings calls. If a claim matters, require primary-source citations before you act. Educational only — not investment advice.

الموجّه الكامل

أنت محلل استثماري مدرّب على مبدأ Jesse Livermore: "Never Average Down". مهمتك تحليل {اسم الشركة} من خلال هذا المنظور المحدد.

## السياق
يعلّم Jesse Livermore: "Never average losses. A losing position means your analysis was wrong. Cut it and move on."

## إطار التحليل

### 1. تقييم تطبيق المبدأ
- كيف ينطبق هذا المبدأ تحديداً على {اسم الشركة}؟
- ما جوانب الشركة الأكثر صلة بـ"Never Average Down"؟
- قيّم التوافق: قوي / متوسط / ضعيف
- على ماذا سيركز Jesse Livermore أولاً؟

### 2. الأدلة الكمية
- حدد 3-5 مؤشرات مالية رئيسية ذات صلة
- حلل هذه المؤشرات خلال السنوات 5-10 الماضية
- قارن مع المنافسين والمعايير التاريخية
- هل الأرقام تتحسن أم مستقرة أم تتدهور؟

### 3. التحليل النوعي
- قيّم العوامل غير القابلة للقياس التي سيفحصها Jesse Livermore
- جودة الإدارة وتوافقها مع هذا المبدأ
- ديناميكيات الصناعة والموقف التنافسي
- استدامة نموذج الأعمال من هذا المنظور

### 4. تقييم المخاطر
- ما المخاطر التي يبرزها هذا المبدأ لـ{اسم الشركة}؟
- ما إشارات التحذير التي سيحددها Jesse Livermore؟
- اختبار الضغط: كيف ستؤدي الشركة في ظروف معاكسة؟
- ما أسوأ سيناريو من منظور هذا المبدأ؟

### 5. تحديد الفرص
- ما الفرص التي يكشفها هذا التحليل؟
- هل هناك نقاط قوة مخفية قد يقلل السوق من قيمتها؟
- ما المحفزات التي قد تطلق القيمة؟

### 6. Livermore Verdict
- هل تجتاز {اسم الشركة} اختبار "Never Average Down"؟
- التقييم: 1-10
- توصية واضحة: شراء / احتفاظ / تجنب
- ملخص في فقرة واحدة

## تنسيق المخرجات
قدم بيانات محددة في كل قسم. اختم بحكم حاسم.

Related reading (close the loop)

Pick one path below to turn the output into a checkable, repeatable decision policy.

Educational only. Verify facts with primary sources and apply your own constraints.

ℹ️هذا المحتوى متاح حاليًا باللغتين الصينية والإنجليزية فقط.

Basic Questions

Why did Livermore firmly oppose averaging down on losing positions?
Core idea: never add to a losing position to average down the cost

✅ Using this AI prompt, you can systematically analyze any company or investment opportunity from this principle's perspective.

The prompt guides you to:
1. Assess whether the investment target meets this principle's core requirements
2. Identify key risks and blind spots
3. Provide a 1-10 comprehensive rating

Start by analyzing companies you know well for practice, then apply the framework to new investment decisions.

Usage Tips

Is AI's advice on whether to average down reliable?
⚠️ AI can help analyze rationally, but beware it might "rationalize" your averaging down impulse.

Value:
- Objectively checks if fundamentals truly haven't changed
- Calculates breakeven point and maximum potential loss after averaging down
- Reminds you of Livermore's lesson: averaging down bankrupted him multiple times

Limitations:
- If you ask with bias ("fundamentals are great, should I add?"), AI may follow your lead
- AI can't tell if you're analyzing rationally or making excuses
- Livermore's rule was NEVER average down — discipline matters more than analysis

✅ If you're asking AI "should I average down?" the answer is almost certainly "no." Livermore's iron rule: never add to a losing position.

Getting started

Does this prompt give investment advice or buy/sell calls?
No. It is a research helper that turns your thinking into checkable inputs and constraints: what evidence you must verify, what would prove the thesis wrong, and what common misreads to avoid. Treat the output as a draft, not a signal. Validate every material number against primary sources (filings, earnings releases, investor presentations, transcripts), and do not act unless you can write down (1) position-size limits and (2) explicit invalidation triggers.
What inputs should I provide for a reliable result?
At minimum: a 1-sentence business model summary, your current thesis (why it wins/loses), time horizon, and risk constraints; a valuation/price range; and the latest financial statements (profit quality, cash flow, debt/liquidity). Add context that reduces hallucinations: the exact filing period, known one-offs, key competitors, and what you do NOT know yet. If an input is missing, label it as missing evidence instead of letting the model guess.

Validation and boundaries

How do I validate the output?
Validate falsifiable claims one by one. Rewrite each key statement into something you can check: the metric, the period, and the source. Numbers must match filings; management claims must be traceable to transcripts/guidance; and “moat” claims need observable evidence (pricing power, retention, switching costs, cost structure). Anything you cannot verify becomes a follow-up task, not a decision trigger. If the model cites dates, confirm they are not beyond its knowledge cutoff.
When should I NOT act on the output?
If you cannot write down invalidation triggers, a position-size cap, or primary-source evidence for the key claims behind “Never Average Down”, do not act. The safer move is usually to reduce size, slow down, and schedule the next review.

المزيد من موجّهات القواعد

استكشف مبادئ استثمارية أخرى من هذا المعلّم.