A growth stock clears 60.00 resistance, then reaches 63.00 before a hypothetical trader acts. With the same planned exit at 58.00, the price distance has grown from 2.00 to 5.00. Mark Minervini’s emphasis on precise entry points makes that change consequential even when the company and its earnings story are unchanged.
Minervini describes SEPA on his official strategy page, connecting his approach with the study of historical superperformers. The publisher’s account of Trade Like a Stock Market Wizard identifies precise entries, capital preservation, trend, fundamentals, earnings and market leaders among its themes.
The following prices and calculations are independent hypothetical examples. They explain the interaction of those decision areas without claiming to reproduce every SEPA rule or a Minervini trade.
Mark Minervini and the distance from entry to exit
In the opening example, an entry at 60.00 and intended exit at 58.00 create 2.00 of planned price risk per share. At 63.00, that distance is 5.00. For the same illustrative planned money loss of 500, the corresponding share counts are 250 and 100.
I focus on that reduction from 250 to 100 because it makes the cost of a later entry visible. Keeping the original share count at 63.00 would raise planned price risk to 1,250, even though the trade might still be described casually as the same setup.
The calculation shows how execution price changes planned risk. The suitability of 58.00 as an exit and the profitability of the entry require separate evidence. An attractive business story can’t undo a wider distance once the position is entered.
The support and resistance guide provides a framework for describing the reference levels. Their analytical usefulness doesn’t guarantee execution at those levels, especially across gaps.
Contraction can be measured without inventing a rule
Consider a hypothetical series of pullbacks measured from separate swing highs: 50.00 to 40.00, 50.00 to 45.00 and 50.00 to 47.50. Their depths are 20%, 10% and 5%. The sequence describes progressively smaller declines around a common ceiling.
A reader can observe the contraction without assuming that those exact percentages are mandatory Minervini criteria. They are illustrative numbers. A real chart may contain different highs, overlapping swings or a final range that is difficult to define consistently.
Nor does a tighter range prove that all potential supply has disappeared. Shares can be offered at higher prices, news can change expectations and participants can change their minds. The chart records what has happened so far.
A research note might preserve the swing dates, highs, lows and volume observations before the eventual breakout. That makes it possible to compare successful and unsuccessful contractions using the same definitions. Drawing the most attractive sequence after the advance has occurred provides a much easier task.
Earnings growth needs a comparable starting point
Suppose quarterly earnings per share rise from 0.10 to 0.20. Growth is 100%. Another company moves from 1.00 to 1.30, a 30% gain. The first percentage is larger, but it doesn’t establish that the first business has the stronger or more durable economics.
The comparison needs context such as the starting base, one-off items, accounting treatment and the number of shares outstanding. A rebound from a depressed quarter can produce a large percentage without implying the same forward growth rate.
I would retain the 0.10 starting value alongside the 100% figure. A screen showing only the growth percentage hides the small denominator that generated it. The underlying numbers help prevent a striking percentage from doing more interpretive work than it deserves.
The William O’Neil profile supplies related reading on growth-stock selection. The connection doesn’t justify importing any particular earnings threshold into SEPA without a supporting passage. Similar interests can coexist with different definitions and decisions.
Relative strength asks which comparison is winning
Imagine a stock rising from 100 to 110 while its benchmark rises from 100 to 120. The stock gains 10%, but its ratio to the benchmark falls from 1.00 to approximately 0.9167. Its absolute advance coexists with relative underperformance.
A comparative strength ranking or ratio is different from the Relative Strength Index oscillator. The latter uses gains and losses within a single price series. Treating the two as interchangeable can attach the wrong indicator to a discussion of leadership.
The sector rotation and relative strength guide develops the comparative question. Any ranking also needs a stated universe and observation period. Leading a small peer group over a month isn’t the same result as leading a broad stock universe over a year.
A leadership label doesn’t remove downside risk. Several leading stocks may depend on the same sector or financing conditions and reverse together. Selection quality and portfolio concentration remain separate questions.
Volume describes activity without identifying the owners
Suppose a breakout session trades two million shares against a preceding daily average of one million. The session’s volume is twice that reference average. That is a clear observation, provided both numbers use comparable session lengths and data conventions.
The ratio doesn’t identify institutions or prove that the new price will hold. Every transaction has counterparties, and total volume doesn’t reveal their investment horizons. A high-volume breakout can still close back inside its base.
A hypothetical study could classify breakouts by volume ratio and compare subsequent outcomes with identical exits. That would evaluate the proposed filter. Simply showing a successful high-volume example would establish only that such an example exists.
Incomplete sessions need care too. Comparing midday volume directly with a full-day average mixes different durations. A projected full-day total is an estimate and belongs in a separate field from the final recorded number.
A competition result has a defined scope
The competition organiser’s 2021 standings report Minervini at 334.8% in the Money Manager Verified Ratings stock division for accounts of one million dollars or more. That is a result attached to a particular period and category.
It doesn’t describe every later year, every participant using similar ideas or the likely result for a reader. A public result can motivate study while leaving the method’s future distribution uncertain. Position concentration, execution and the path of losses matter alongside the ending return.
For an independent example, two accounts can each finish up 30% after very different paths. One may experience a 5% peak-to-trough decline and another a 25% decline. The shared return doesn’t make their risk experiences equivalent.
The Ulcer Index discussion offers another way to describe drawdown through time. A reader evaluating any public result needs the surrounding record before drawing conclusions about the experience required to achieve it.
A failed setup should remain in the study
Suppose a hypothetical stock meets the chosen earnings and trend conditions, contracts beneath 60.00, then breaks higher and falls to 57.00. The failure doesn’t automatically show that one of the original conditions was misread. A properly classified setup can lose.
Redefining the pattern after each loss can make a method look more certain than it was. A research record can preserve the original classification and separately record any genuine data or execution error. Those are different explanations.
Gap risk also remains. If an intended exit is 58.00 and the first available fill is 55.00, a 60.00 entry loses 5.00 per share before costs. A precise entry makes the plan clearer; it doesn’t enforce the plan on future prices.
The useful discipline is keeping selection, trigger, position size and exit assumptions visible together. A change in one part may require a new calculation elsewhere.
A screen can also concentrate attention in one industry. Suppose six of eight qualifying stocks depend on similar customer spending. Their charts may each satisfy the chosen conditions while the combined list remains sensitive to one change in that spending. Candidate quality and portfolio diversity are different measurements. A research record can retain the industry grouping alongside each stock’s individual figures before any position is considered.
That record matters when judging the next month. If all six weaken together, six disappointing results aren’t necessarily six independent pieces of evidence about the chart definition. The shared setting may explain part of the cluster. Separating those possibilities requires comparison with other periods and groups, without automatically excusing the losses or declaring the whole method invalid.
Books for studying Mark Minervini
Trade Like a Stock Market Wizard and Think & Trade Like a Champion are by Mark Minervini. Momentum Masters is a roundtable featuring Minervini, David Ryan, Dan Zanger and Mark Ritchie II. These are distinct books, not alternate editions of one work. The 60.00-to-58.00 example above is independently constructed to clarify entry distance.
As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.
Trade Like a Stock Market Wizard. Hardcover.
(US) Trade Like a Stock Market Wizard
(UK) Trade Like a Stock Market Wizard
(DE) Trade Like a Stock Market Wizard
Think & Trade Like a Champion. Hardcover.
(US) Think & Trade Like a Champion
Momentum Masters. Paperback.
The same stock can become a different trade
At 63.00, the original 58.00 exit sits 5.00 away. That fact remains true even if every business argument still sounds persuasive. A precise process gives the changed entry its own calculation instead of allowing enthusiasm for the company to preserve an obsolete risk estimate.
Learn the pattern. Ride the trend. Keep the gains.
Educational content only. Not investment advice. Trading involves risk. You are responsible for your decisions.
Get the free Market Wisdom e-book
Join Trends and Breakouts — historical winners, breakout studies, and risk lessons. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.