Analysts, Gurus & Pundits
- KirkL
- Holden
- Kirk
- Kirk
- Kirk
- Kirk
- KirkL
- RandeS
- KirkL
- KirkL
This archived discussion is "read only".
For the corresponding "live" discussions, post in the active topic forum here.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next »
» KirkL - More....Foolishness?
Anthony might agree....David: In 1994, the media said that Internet stocks were overvalued. Same in 1995, we were told. And in 1996. And 1997. 1998 too. And now in 1999, of course. Interesting.
Tom: Yes, it is. And that's one of the beauties of the Breaker model -- the conventional wisdom and the media will ALWAYS think they're overvalued.
Now, as for Maker investors, all an investor really needs is an understanding of fifth grade mathematics, an eye for the providers of everyday products and services, and a love for the principles of compound interest. The book creates a system for ranking companies that is extremely intuitive. And that's the aim of the entire book -- to make stock picking and business analyses clear, useful, and time effective.
Kirk's Notes: The smart investor will learn from their mistakes. To me, the only mistakes in investing are underperformance and, even worse, loss of capital. Still, we might learn what keys the fools followed. Their performance is more than luck and it is only the idiots that will continue to write off their portfolio performance as luck. Then again, I'd rather be lucky (and rich) then good.
-- posted by KirkL
» Kirk - Forbes Hulbert Article.
Hulbert does a good job of explaining why he ranks newsletter writers back before the 1987 correction which puts BB in at something like 8.8% annualized which is about average.Forbes article Exerpt
Now the correction gives us a load of information about which advisers truly earn their pay. To mine this information, we reviewed the Hulbert Financial Digest's newsletter performance database, starting at the peak of the market in 1987.
-- posted by Kirk
» Kirk - The Gaz expects less than 10% correction..
FromFull articleexerpt: Historically, our indicator reading of 40 percent to 50 percent is sometimes associated with 10 percent to 15 percent S&P 500 corrections. Readings below 30 percent suggest a greater than 20 percent drop for the S&P 500. Thus, at a 63.3 percent reading, we believe the current correction should not exceed 10 percent.
-- posted by Kirk
» Kirk - Joe Battapaglia(sp?) vs David Tice
Joe Battapaglia(sp?) vs David TiceTalk about a mismatch!
Tice says dump technology stocks as prices are absurd and they will tumble. I believe Tice is working on the "stuck clock syndrome" hoping the hands swing around and make him right once.
Joe says telecom industry will accelerate demand and drive the biggies even higher yet.
Joe likes msft, intel, txn, intc, ibm, csco and Lu specifically mentioned as must owns. and also said second tiers are good to own.
I agree with Joe.
btw, I read in today's Merc that several Republicans won't vote to remove Clinton from office so the party is over and that was the catalyst I spoke of to launch the market toward new highs.
-- posted by Kirk
» KirkL - Feedback Discussion with CNBC
To: +PETE from STAMFORD, CT (3394 ) From: +David BogdanoffSaturday, Feb 20 1999 10:16PM ET
P;
The methodological problems of analyst ratings are considerable. For example, Hulbert does not rate newsletters unless they meet certain standards of clarity and then he tries to calculate their returns on the basis of the way the subscriber can impliment them in practice. After a stock recommendation, Hulbert uses the opening price of the next day's for that stock, on the presumption that a subscriber would not be able to get to a broker and purchase a stock the same day the recommendation was made. On CNBC recommended stocks shoot up even as the guest analyst mentions their name. I recall a study published in the WSJ some 30 years ago which showed how stocks recommended by the guest analyst on Friday's program actually started going up about 5 days before the program, peaked on Friday, and then stablized or even slightly declined in the following weeks. Investors who knew the analyst list of recommended stocks were buying in anticipation of his Friday appearance! I really don't know what to make of analyst's recommendations on CNBC (or anywhere else) since they often have a conflict of interest based either on the portfolio under their direct management, their clients' portfolios, or the investment banking department if they work for a brokerage. Many informal studies have shown these conflicts to result in bias in recommendation.
David
To: +David Bogdanoff (3398 ) From: +PETE from STAMFORD, CT
Sunday, Feb 21 1999 7:46AM ET Reply # of 3415
David B: RE: < The methodological problems of analyst ratings are considerable >
You've eloquently described all the obstacles CNBC might face in setting up a system to keep track of guess forecasts. Can you think of ( and post) ways CNBC could overcome each of these obstacles ?
P
Pete:
Interesting question. As I said before, CNBC is simply not trying to evaluate its guest analysts/commentators/ceos and undoubtedly does not have the expertise to do a credible job. They might have a special segment in which there is some sort of competition between participating analysts. the WSJ does this sort of thing in an ongoing competition between a group of three rotating analysts and the dart board. I expect that the guests currently donate their time, and it would greatly diminish the pool of potential guests if they were put under the microscope of evaluation. There is a brief review of the past 3 recommendations on Taking Stock, and you should see the defensiveness when the performance is poor.
Its interesting to note that nobel prize winner William Sharpe thinks that most, perhaps all, analysts underperform an index fund. If there are some superior analysts, he thinks that one cannot identify them in time to use their skills to advantage. If Sharpe is right, evaluating analysts is pointless exercise.
David
To: +David Bogdanoff (3406 ) From: +Kirk
David, you wrote:
Its interesting to note that nobel prize winner William Sharpe thinks that most, perhaps all, analysts underperform an index fund. If there are some superior analysts, he thinks that one cannot identify them in time to use their skills to advantage. If Sharpe is right, evaluating analysts is pointless exercise.
Then you are saying, if you agree with Bill Sharpe, that putting analysts on the air is "a puff piece" and has no value to investors.
The question that beggs to be asked "so, then why do it?" if not to give the masses what they want (ratings) and to make sponsors happy as they get their "TV spokes-models" out on the airwaves so they get more investment banking business?
Maybe we are being too harsh as we are intelligent (or educated) enough to know that these "TV-spokes-models" are just walking advertisements for companies that their firms represent. Still, if you are saying you are a "news show" then this is not good journalism. IF, on the other hand, you say you are an entertainment show like "Entertainment Tonight", then I have no problem with it as it is entertaining to hear about companies that sell stock.
regards
Kirk out
PS Interesting discussion and I am glad you are looking for feedback. I am copying this discussion to another website: http://www.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/i...
called "Your Favorite Stock Market Guru"
| <img src=http://www.amazon.com/covers/0/47/112/104/0471121045.m.gif> | |
| With the stock market breaking records almost daily, a study of the concept of risk seems quite timely. Peter Bernstein has written a comprehensive history of man's efforts to understand risk and probability. |
-- posted by KirkL
» RandeS - Sharpe's view (and others) that fundmaental analysis is a waste
Sharpe's view (and others) that fundmaental analysis is a waste (not to mention technical analysis) presents a paradox. Sharpe is right -- the thousands of high-paid and well-equipped analysts competing against each other cannot help but be average at best over time, since they ARE the market. This is what makes indexing so appealing. But the analysts are necessary for the efficient market hypothesis to operate. If everyone went passive, then inefficiencies would materialize and some individuals could capitalize on them. Of course, others would follow quickly eliminating the advantage. Thus, the market is self-correcting in its efficient operation and indexing will continue to win. Bottom line -- individuals should not waste their time trying to anlayze stocks in an attemp to find bargains -- the full-time pros have too great an advantage. Don't knock the pros' vain attempts, however, they make indexing work so well for the rest of us who are disclined to waste our time and money.By the way, for an excellent recounting of the history of modern portfolio theory/efficient market hypothesis and its "intrusion" into the world of Wall Street, check out Peter Bernstein's excellent book, "Capital Ideas."
-- posted by RandeS
» KirkL - Capital Ideas
Thanks RandeSeveral others have recommended this book to me. Below is a link to buy it.
I agree indexing is the way to go for the average Savvy investor that doesn't have tons of time. I do argue that one can use Contrarian strategies to build your own index fund of companies over 10 or 20 yrs and outperform the index funds since you are buying the stocks when cheap. This is a lot of work, though, and so indexing with a mutual fund is best for most.
| <img src=http://www.amazon.com/covers/0/02/903/012/0029030129.m.gif> | |
| Review A savvy appreciation of how a small band of disinterested academics has revolutionized the way Wall Street and its offshore counterparts manage the world's investment wealth. |
-- posted by KirkL
» KirkL - Investment Strategies for the Roaring 2000s.
A seminar by (and chat with) Ralph Acampora et al:Log On and Tune Into the Future!
Investment Strategies for the Roaring 2000s.
Date: Tuesday, February 23, 1999
Where:http://www.prusec.com
Time: 7:30 pm - 8:00 pm, Eastern Standard Time
Featuring...
Ralph Acampora, Chief Technical Analyst, Prudential Securities, and a regular panelist on Louis Rukeyser's Wall $treet Week.
Harry S. Dent, Renowned futurist, The Roaring 2000s author.
Participate in a live chat with Ralph and Harry directly after the seminar.
The future is now -- online at http://www.prusec.com
-- posted by KirkL
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Next »
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.