Let us begin/POTO, while I am working on things, I'd like to point out that I am also not a fan of over-analysis. I think that what agip is saying is pretty much dead right, about hedge funds. I know 2 smaller fund managers, and their experience validates his comment.
So, while I bury myself for a while in equations like Fisher (which along with others I am completely capable of understanding, with lots of advanced university math), I see where they have their limits, and market prediction is one such area. Sure you can slice the baloney ever more thinly to weed out confounding factors, but then the range of applicability of your theorem is unusably narrow.
The markets are composed of a relatively small number of major players, and the rest of the players just play within the paradigm set by the big guys. Fine. Fun, and profit, can be had while restricting your play to a small area of the sandbox--but that's not what I'm interested in. What I am interested in is the aggregate markets, and what they have to say about the economy as a whole.
IMO when discussing things like this it is important to NOT let over-analysis, and too much rigor, cloud your vision. Intuition is great, as long as you have enough experience that it means something, and as long as you know who you are, to constrain the validity of that intuition.
I don't know about agip or about you, but although I do apply rigor to some things that I do, including what I am doing now, it is not the be-all and end-all of life as a social being.
You would be better off asking agip for more information about his pronouncements and then taking them for what they are worth, rather than constantly trying to point out an insufficiency of rigor.
Down goes the Dow
Report Thread
-
-
Did you notice that after taking a steep dive today, the markets recovered when Meb went to the front? Coincidence? I think not.
-
Maserati wrote:
Let us begin/POTO, while I am working on things, I'd like to point out that I am also not a fan of over-analysis. I think that what agip is saying is pretty much dead right, about hedge funds. I know 2 smaller fund managers, and their experience validates his comment.
So, while I bury myself for a while in equations like Fisher (which along with others I am completely capable of understanding, with lots of advanced university math), I see where they have their limits, and market prediction is one such area. Sure you can slice the baloney ever more thinly to weed out confounding factors, but then the range of applicability of your theorem is unusably narrow.
The markets are composed of a relatively small number of major players, and the rest of the players just play within the paradigm set by the big guys. Fine. Fun, and profit, can be had while restricting your play to a small area of the sandbox--but that's not what I'm interested in. What I am interested in is the aggregate markets, and what they have to say about the economy as a whole.
IMO when discussing things like this it is important to NOT let over-analysis, and too much rigor, cloud your vision. Intuition is great, as long as you have enough experience that it means something, and as long as you know who you are, to constrain the validity of that intuition.
I don't know about agip or about you, but although I do apply rigor to some things that I do, including what I am doing now, it is not the be-all and end-all of life as a social being.
You would be better off asking agip for more information about his pronouncements and then taking them for what they are worth, rather than constantly trying to point out an insufficiency of rigor.
I'll be waiting for that substance.
Hopefully. -
LK wrote:
Klondike5 wrote:
Down to 14,850 from a peak of 15,700 I believe.
Maybe 5%
What's the bottom?
I am betting sub 13,000
Just got out of a coma. How we doin'?
A collapse putting the Dow well below 13k looking more and more likely all the time.
The billionaires on Wall Street continue to illegally inside trade via front-running (euphemistically called high frequency trading) with zero interference from the regulators or the Justice dept. It is now common knowledge -- even 60 minutes did a piece on it 2 weeks ago -- but it continues unabated.
Why would you continue to bet when the game is so very rigged?
The insiders will continue to cheat -- confident that there will be no repercussions to them -- and continue to take wild gambles -- secure in their knowledge that the taxpayers will be force to bail them out when they cause the next inevitable meltdown.
But you sharpies keep gambling with these crooks. How can you lose? -
5 straight days up - the US is still around 1.8% from its highs but the rest of the world is closer.
-
agip wrote:
5 straight days up - the US is still around 1.8% from its highs but the rest of the world is closer.
Don't say I did not warn you and give you damn good reasons about why you need be wary. -
Klondike5 wrote:
A collapse putting the Dow well below 13k looking more and more likely all the time.
There's your buy signal, folks. That's as good of a guarantee for a bull market as you're going to get. -
"even 60 minutes did a piece on it 2 weeks ago ". Isn't 60 Minutes part of the mainstream media?
-
I wonder if Maserati will submit his findings for peer review?
-
Hey agip did you see this? http://www.etf.com/sections/features/21750-meb-faber-own-the-most-beaten-down-stocks.html
When it comes to investing in equities, it pays to be a value investor, and on a global scale. That’s the message Mebane Faber, Cambria’s chief investment officer, conveys in his latest book, “Global Value: How to Spot Bubbles, Avoid Market Crashes, and Earn Big Returns in the Stock Market.”
The 80-plus-page book¸ released last month, came alongside the launch of Cambria’s latest ETF, the Cambria Global Value ETF (GVAL), a passively managed fund that invests in 100 stocks of the world’s 11 most undervalued developed and emerging countries. Think of the portfolio as the “Terrible 11”—teeming with heightened expected returns and poised to bounce back up.
While most might find the idea of buying into the most-beaten-down markets daunting, Faber argues GVAL could replace your foreign stock allocation, if not replace your entire equities allocation. -
grazie gente - I bought Faber's book but hadn't seen that article. I already own one of Faber's ETFs : SYLD.
I'll take a look at this GVAL - it sounds interesting as one stop shop for all the beaten down countries. Now I have to buy Greece, Ireland, Argentina etc separately.
My worry is that these smart beta funds all work great in backtests and theory but fail in the real world.
Do you know Jim O'Shaughnessy? He's a personal hero - one of the early quant driven managers. He did all kinds of backtesting and started some funds that, by his backtesting, were supposed to return 18% per year.
That was in 1997.
They've actually done ok - returning 9%/yr for 15 years vs 4.2% for the SP500. But I believe the real world funds have broken below what the models suggested they would do. And you would have done better buying low cost small cap funds, which are these funds' true peers.
HFCGX is the purest one.
Looking forward to reading the interview - excellent. I wrote Faber once - suggesting that he doesn't give enough credit to the theory that CAPE is not a good way to compare valuations across eras because accounting standards have changed so much.
Faber responded - he said that every other measure of valuation - incl price to sales (which is not affected by accounting) show large overvaluation too. -
la gente está muy loca wrote:
"even 60 minutes did a piece on it 2 weeks ago ". Isn't 60 Minutes part of the mainstream media?
Of course. If even they are reporting on this you know the cat is out of the bag. It is such common knowledge they can no longer avoid commenting without completely destroying their credibility. They have to pretend to be independent media and not gatekeepers for the elites -
Sally Vixxxens wrote:
Klondike5 wrote:
A collapse putting the Dow well below 13k looking more and more likely all the time.
There's your buy signal, folks. That's as good of a guarantee for a bull market as you're going to get.
Now there 's some good thinking. I have such a knowledge of the future or power over the market that I am misleading you all into selling so I can profit. You got me Sally -
Klondick5 wrote:
agip wrote:
5 straight days up - the US is still around 1.8% from its highs but the rest of the world is closer.
Don't say I did not warn you and give you damn good reasons about why you need be wary.
Stealing others' handles and/or imitating others' handles to put words in other people's mouths is the lamest thing one can do on these boards.
Congratulations! -
Once again, even if the market is "rigged", even if there is insider trading (there always is), even if front-running is a mess--none of that means that there isn't money to be made by the everyman. So K5, while being very wary of the markets myself, I don't buy your line of reasoning for not being in the markets.
Peer review, I think not. You sound like someone who knows how these things go. I am not interested in academic exercises, I need to apply things to the "real world" in terms of my personal wealth. I will take the results, correlate them with the performances of various asset classes that are of interest to me, and combine them with my biases to inform my own decision-making. I am not interested in what others think of my decision-making, nor am I interested in "advancing the field" in any sort of incremental academic way.
Unless the exercise is incredibly narrow and entirely academic, peer review of something like this has absolutely no value, and is not of interest. The real sciences, like the various branches of physics, chemistry, etc., and even other endeavors like medicine, psychology, etc., benefit immensely from peer review.
Dow up 108 to 16,557 as we speak. Still no particular reason for me personally to get back in. -
Once again, even if the market is "rigged", even if there is insider trading (there always is), even if front-running is a mess--none of that means that there isn't money to be made by the everyman.
Bet on a fixed match when you are not the fixer? -
Maserati wrote:
...
Peer review, I think not...
Unless the exercise is incredibly narrow and entirely academic, peer review of something like this has absolutely no value, and is not of interest. The real sciences, like the various branches of physics, chemistry, etc., and even other endeavors like medicine, psychology, etc., benefit immensely from peer review.
Wow, could you possibly be serious? Peer review is not of interest? Do you even know what peer review means?
Sorry, perhaps I should not ask that question as you are obviously an intelligent fellow. But the notion that verifying the validity of various strategies (that is what peer review is about - verifying the validity of any theory/study/etc.) has "absolutely no value" is absurd to the point where it is difficult to believe you could be serious. -
I don't doubt the value of peer review, but let's not kid ourselves - a peer reviewed piece may or may not be accurate. There have been a few hoaxes that show just because something is peer reviewed doesn't mean it is accurate.
These and other problems are -
The Thomson Reuters Global Index (11,000 stocks) is up 60% since April 24, 2009 @ 169.53 and 20% up since the peak of the Nasdaq bubble in 2000.
It peaked at 184.14 on October 10, 2007. -
agip wrote:
I don't doubt the value of peer review, but let's not kid ourselves - a peer reviewed piece may or may not be accurate. There have been a few hoaxes that show just because something is peer reviewed doesn't mean it is accurate.
These and other problems are
Fully agreed that peer review does not guarantee perfection of the final product. Nothing does.
It is, however, one of the best tools that humanity has going for validating pretty much any result in pretty much any field.
