cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
     
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Analysis - My thoughts and thanks


@norbertc wrote:

@racqueteer wrote:

@norbertc wrote:

Racq,

Let's end the exchange. It's obviously pointless. 


That's fine, it was a worthwhile conversation to have.  I DO understand where you're coming from, Norbert; I hope you understand my pov as well...


You're not demonstrating any understanding whatsoever. That concerns me.


I'm sorry to hear that you think I don't understand you.  I assure you that I do.  Are you equating understanding with agreement, possibly?  IAE, it appears that apparent lack of understanding goes both ways; as you seem to have misunderstood me as well.  I know we're talking about two completely different things.  You, however, don't seem to realize that, and THAT'S a little concerning...

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Analysis - My thoughts and thanks


@Remotetrader wrote:

 Kudos to norbertc and Va-Tech.  As you say, it is about personal integrity and honesty.  I noticed the poster in question has also taken his act over to the MFO forum.  They seem to be a bit wiser to his incessant bragging and bravado.  An incessant braggart is a red flag in and of itself.  Not sure what his agenda is.


Ok, new player...  Do YOU have any issue with the DATA FD posts?  Is it, in your opinion, accurate and not falsified?  If you have no issue with the data (none has been raised), and you don't believe it's falsified (I've never heard that claim being made), does there exist any issue with the data itself?

Next, FD has been clear about how he interprets the data: He basically looks for best performance with lowest SD, within a category, over a short period of time (short being less than a year probably).  A number of folk have expressed concern about what constitutes a category, how much significance one should accord to SD, and how long a period of time should apply.  I'm one of them.  So there is not a clear consensus on the evaluation/analysis piece.  All transparent so far.  Any issues yet?  That's where things end.  No issues for me; how about for you?  All the rest is just about the individual and whether or not I believe him, find him likable, etc.  I frankly don't care about ANYONE'S claims. 

Now it happens that I know FD from many years back.  Not just online, but personally.  I remember when he was VERY transparent.  When he posted his holdings.  When he indicated his moves.  On the basis of my previous interactions with him, I'M inclined to accept what he says, but I understand that, without evidence, there's no reason for anyone else to do that.  Even so, I've never heard or seen ANYONE claim his data was wrong.  THIS thread is about people who provide raw data to the rest of us so we can run our own evaluations.  FD is one of those.  Perhaps interestingly, his detractors are NOT.  So, what; I'm supposed to ignore the data he provides because some don't believe his claims - though they can't disprove them either?  Why would anyone expect me to DO that?

Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Analysis - My thoughts and thanks


@norbertc wrote:


You completely misunderstood @VA-Tech 's argument. I'm starting to worry about you. Are you OK? I'm serious. That's more important than the stuff we're debating.

My dad suffered an injury similar to yours. That's why I ask. Probably better done privately, but ...


I'm going to assume good intentions.  Thank you for your concern, but I'm not misunderstanding VA's argument.  Instead, I'm recognizing that the two of you and I have been, from the beginning, talking about two entirely different things.  For some reason, I've not been able to get that point across to you two.  This problem has been exacerbated by the fact that you and I are apparently disagreeing abut how we're using the term: data.  The two of you feel that the statistical insignificance involved in FD's always being right means he's untrustworthy.  THAT means you can't accept his claims.  That's for you two to decide, but I have to point out it' no guarantee you're right.

Regardless, that has nothing to do with anything I wrote in my op.  I find nothing wrong with the data FD provided, and I expressed my concerns about some of the methodology employed in the analysis of the data.  His claims, their believability, etc, aren't relevant to the validity of the data he provides.  I don't have to agree with his conclusions, anything he may choose to do, nor take notice of his claims in order to use his data.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Explorer ○○

Re: Analysis - My thoughts and thanks


@racqueteer wrote:

@Remotetrader wrote:

 Kudos to norbertc and Va-Tech.  As you say, it is about personal integrity and honesty.  I noticed the poster in question has also taken his act over to the MFO forum.  They seem to be a bit wiser to his incessant bragging and bravado.  An incessant braggart is a red flag in and of itself.  Not sure what his agenda is.


Ok, new player...  Do YOU have any issue with the DATA FD posts?  Is it, in your opinion, accurate and not falsified?  If you have no issue with the data (none has been raised), and you don't believe it's falsified (I've never heard that claim being made), does there exist any issue with the data itself?

Next, FD has been clear about how he interprets the data: He basically looks for best performance with lowest SD, within a category, over a short period of time (short being less than a year probably).  A number of folk have expressed concern about what constitutes a category, how much significance one should accord to SD, and how long a period of time should apply.  I'm one of them.  So there is not a clear consensus on the evaluation/analysis piece.  All transparent so far.  Any issues yet?  That's where things end.  No issues for me; how about for you?  All the rest is just about the individual and whether or not I believe him, find him likable, etc.  I frankly don't care about ANYONE'S claims. 

Now it happens that I know FD from many years back.  Not just online, but personally.  I remember when he was VERY transparent.  When he posted his holdings.  When he indicated his moves.  On the basis of my previous interactions with him, I'M inclined to accept what he says, but I understand that, without evidence, there's no reason for anyone else to do that.  Even so, I've never heard or seen ANYONE claim his data was wrong.  THIS thread is about people who provide raw data to the rest of us so we can run our own evaluations.  FD is one of those.  Perhaps interestingly, his detractors are NOT.  So, what; I'm supposed to ignore the data he provides because some don't believe his claims - though they can't disprove them either?  Why would anyone expect me to DO that?


No problem whatsoever with his data.  He just regurgitates a lot of raw data most are too lazy to research.  But  I give him credit for his thoroughness  in doing the research.  Although even there I have to wonder.  He posted this weekend DHEAX has caught his eye.  Really?  Since April 17 a period of 50 trading days and adjusting for dividends it has had but one down day and up close to 8%.  Pretty impressive for a short duration bond fund.  It is now extremely overbought. And now it is catching his eye?  As for believing his trading claims I believe that has already been covered by VA-Tech about what PT Barnum is alleged to have said.   

Edit:  You can have the last word as I have better things to do this Sunday evening.  Having the last word?  You seem like that type.  Reminds me of someone else.  You never really know who you are debating on these boards do you.

 

 

 

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Analysis - My thoughts and thanks


@Remotetrader wrote:

 Kudos to norbertc and Va-Tech.  As you say, it is about personal integrity and honesty.  I noticed the poster in question has also taken his act over to the MFO forum.  They seem to be a bit wiser to his incessant bragging and bravado.  An incessant braggart is a red flag in and of itself.  Not sure what his agenda is.


That's not the point, whether he is a bragart,  or not. The point of the OP is the data this poster has presented is of value.

It seems to me @racqueteer has been saying quite clearly from the beginning the personality, his personal achievements are not important,  only the data he provides. The OP is focused on facts, not personality and emotions. 

Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Analysis - My thoughts and thanks


@Remotetrader wrote:

@racqueteer wrote:

@Remotetrader wrote:

 Kudos to norbertc and Va-Tech.  As you say, it is about personal integrity and honesty.  I noticed the poster in question has also taken his act over to the MFO forum.  They seem to be a bit wiser to his incessant bragging and bravado.  An incessant braggart is a red flag in and of itself.  Not sure what his agenda is.


Ok, new player...  Do YOU have any issue with the DATA FD posts?  Is it, in your opinion, accurate and not falsified?  If you have no issue with the data (none has been raised), and you don't believe it's falsified (I've never heard that claim being made), does there exist any issue with the data itself?


No problem whatsoever with his data.  He just regurgitates a lot of raw data most are too lazy to research.  But I give him credit for his thoroughness  in doing the research.


Good; that's all I ever said.  I'm glad you understood what I WAS saying.  Norbert's difficulty understanding my point, and that it was unrelated to his own, had me wondering.


@Remotetrader wrote:

 Although even there I have to wonder.  He posted this weekend DHEAX has caught his eye.  Really?  Since April 17 a period of 50 trading days and adjusting for dividends it has had but one down day and up close to 8%.  Pretty impressive for a short duration bond fund.  It is now extremely overbought. And now it is catching his eye?  As for believing his trading claims I believe that has already been covered by VA-Tech about what PT Barnum is alleged to have said.   

And I have no right to criticize your conclusions.


@Remotetrader wrote:
Edit:  You can have the last word as I have better things to do this Sunday evening.  Having the last word?  You seem like that type.  Reminds me of someone else.  You never really know who you are debating on these boards do you?

Why the nastiness?  I didn't presume to typecast you.  I wasn't insulting.  I presumed, perhaps incorrectly, that you also were not understanding me, so I attempted to explain my position, but it seems you do understand the point I was attempting to make.  Good.  I hope your Sunday evening is a pleasant one, and I'm sorry if I offended you in some way; it wasn't intentional.  Now you can have the last word if you want it.  ;-)

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Analysis - My thoughts and thanks [DHEAX/DHEIX]

@Remotetrader , @racqueteer , DHEAX/DHEIX? There is something in the chart of this short-term bond that 1 wk, 1 mo, 3 mo, YTD, 12 mo data miss.   https://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=DHEIX&p=D&b=5&g=0&id=p57188271533

YBB
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Analysis - My thoughts and thanks

It's not only data.  But all the metrics of Sharpe and Sortino and SD do not consider asset class and how to construct a sound balanced portfolio.  And even all that data still led to the Fab 3 Sleep Well portfolio that each one dropped 13% in the meltdown.  But it is not about data and his no better than the next guy prognostication.  It is about the relentless bragging constant ego.  In real life I would never hang with dude like that.  He would make me want to bust him in the chops every time.  Until we get ignore we have to deal with this intrusion unfortunately.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Analysis - My thoughts and thanks [DHEAX/DHEIX]


@yogibearbull wrote:

@Remotetrader , @racqueteer , DHEAX/DHEIX? There is something in the chart of this short-term bond that 1 wk, 1 mo, 3 mo, YTD, 12 mo data miss.   https://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=DHEIX&p=D&b=5&g=0&id=p57188271533


I see a couple things, yogi.  We have resistance just above, an overbought condition, the start of a MACD downward cross...  To what are you referring?

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Contributor ○○○

Re: Analysis - My thoughts and thanks


@PaulR888 wrote:

But it is not about data and his no better than the next guy prognostication.  It is about the relentless bragging constant ego.  In real life I would never hang with dude like that.  He would make me want to bust him in the chops every time.  Until we get ignore we have to deal with this intrusion unfortunately.


 

No, @PaulR888, you don't "have to deal with this intrusion" at all. By the way, I hope I am not too far off the mark when I assume you are referring to FD.

I also assume you are a big boy and have learned how to control your most basic impulses by now. If you don't like his "relentless bragging", as you call it, just don't read his posts. They are all clearly marked with his initials in big fat letters. You can't miss them. It's really that simple.

Unfortunately, you don't seem to realize that your repetitive and quite boring personal attacks on another poster are very tiresome and quite unproductive. I check out this discussion forum for suggestions and comments that will help me make money. FD is one of the few posters who often delivers the data I need to start my own due diligence process. As I noted previously, some of his fund suggestions have actually made me a significant amount of money.

Please use your extensive knowledge and investment acumen in a more positive manner in the future by refraining from ad hominem attacks. Quite a number of us here will really appreciate it in our ongoing efforts to maintain a financially secure retirement.

Thanks,

Fred

  

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Analysis - My thoughts and thanks


@PaulR888 wrote:

It's not only data.  But all the metrics of Sharpe and Sortino and SD do not consider asset class and how to construct a sound balanced portfolio.  And even all that data still led to the Fab 3 Sleep Well portfolio that each one dropped 13% in the meltdown.  But it is not about data and his no better than the next guy prognostication.  It is about the relentless bragging constant ego.  In real life I would never hang with dude like that.  He would make me want to bust him in the chops every time.  Until we get ignore we have to deal with this intrusion unfortunately.


I would argue that the data isn't the problem in the case you're citing.  The data is what it is and that was the only thing I was talking about in this thread.  It's the interpretation of the data; the fitting of the data into a framework that was the issue.  That's the second step in the process and the first point of potential failure.  Yes, you have to have some framework based on your needs and determine how the data will inform your decisions.  And yes, you need to step in yourself at this point to tailor the interpretation/evaluation process to YOUR needs. The data collection, by itself, is only a PART of the decision-making process.  As you noted, there are some issues with how the data should be interpreted.  DT went so far as to ask me if I had any better suggestions for what pieces of data to use or how to use them.  I don't think, as it appears you don't, that you can use a simple rule such as: low SD good; high SD bad.  So ceding decision-making to someone else is a bad idea generally.  You usually can't count on their values/process being appropriate for you, but most people prefer that other folks ('experts') tell them what to think/do. 

As a former teacher, I can tell you that most kids want to know what the 'correct' answer is so they can memorize it and spit it back.  Their goal is to get through the material rather than understanding what they're doing.  It's a chore to complete and check off; not one designed to become a permanent part of their thinking process.  If they can get someone ELSE to do the work FOR them, so much the better.  We are, after all, simply grown-up children.  ;-)

As to the last part of what you wrote, Paul, that's a different conversation entirely.  I have no dog in that race and that doesn't have any relevance to what I posted.  I chose not to involve myself in THAT conversation.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Analysis - My thoughts and thanks


@fred495 wrote:

@norbertc wrote:

Fred,

Sorry, but I think we've lost a lot of strong contributors because of the prolific posting habits of certain individuals who shall not be named. We see things differently. But, if you're satisfied, that's definitely a good thing. 

 

Well, Norbert, as I tried to point out, I am certainly not satisfied by the tiresome and seemingly never ending "prolific posting habits of certain individuals" that seem to be obsessed attacking another poster with nasty personal comments. And, lets not beat around the bush, aren't you really just talking about FD?

Sorry, but we definitely "see things differently". I am in agreement with Racq's quite lucid and rational statement that "I-DON'T-CARE how anyone else claims to be doing. I care about the data they present and the process they're using to evaluate that data".

Fred  


I'm not going to name individuals, but it's more than one.

By the way, I agree that FD has offered good fund ideas. He spends time watching funds and has made many astute and helpful observations.  That's good "data", to use Racq's vocabulary.

Also, FD gave me good advice offline during my trips to his homeland. Thanks to him, I started making regular breakfast drives to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv. Much appreciated!

The problems relate to excessive reliance on short-term statistics to predict the future performance of complex investments. Markets are often noisy; many factors can explain short-term performance differences, many having nothing to do with the managers skills. So, I'm skeptical about using momentum or standard deviation to trade fixed income OEFs.

When I recently explained my concerns about this to FD, he replied with personal insults instead of focusing on the issues I raised. That's troubling, don't you think? 

The other problem relates to performance claims that are not supported by transparent disclosure. That's a no-no on an Internet investment board. As I'm sure you know, there's a lot of disingenuous attitude and pretension in the investing business. I won't tolerate it on our M* Discuss site!

It's a simple matter for any trader wannabe to post trades in real time instead of bragging about successful trades after the fact. Funny thing, these guys will NEVER join our annual Challenge, which has rules about posting trades in real time. I hope that you can understand this issue.

N.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Analysis - My thoughts and thanks


@racqueteer wrote:

@norbertc wrote:


You completely misunderstood @VA-Tech 's argument. I'm starting to worry about you. Are you OK? I'm serious. That's more important than the stuff we're debating.

My dad suffered an injury similar to yours. That's why I ask. Probably better done privately, but ...


I'm going to assume good intentions.  Thank you for your concern, but I'm not misunderstanding VA's argument.  Instead, I'm recognizing that the two of you and I have been, from the beginning, talking about two entirely different things.  For some reason, I've not been able to get that point across to you two.  This problem has been exacerbated by the fact that you and I are apparently disagreeing abut how we're using the term: data.  The two of you feel that the statistical insignificance involved in FD's always being right means he's untrustworthy.  THAT means you can't accept his claims.  That's for you two to decide, but I have to point out it' no guarantee you're right.

Regardless, that has nothing to do with anything I wrote in my op.  I find nothing wrong with the data FD provided, and I expressed my concerns about some of the methodology employed in the analysis of the data.  His claims, their believability, etc, aren't relevant to the validity of the data he provides.  I don't have to agree with his conclusions, anything he may choose to do, nor take notice of his claims in order to use his data.


I've already explained the point you're missing several times. So has VA-Tech.  You keep ignoring my argument, or simply don't understand it. I won't try again. Go back and re-read the posts if it suits you. Otherwise, I hope you have a nice day.

N.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Analysis - My thoughts and thanks


@norbertc wrote:
I've already explained the point you're missing several times. So has VA-Tech.  You keep ignoring my argument, or simply don't understand it. I won't try again. Go back and re-read the posts if it suits you. Otherwise, I hope you have a nice day.

Norbert, you keep repeating this claim as if the repetition is going to make it true.  It doesn't.  I understand completely what it is you guys are saying.  You say I'm not understanding or ignoring your contentions.  Ok, you're right on that point; I'm ignoring your argument as being unrelated to my op here, and also because you can't support your supposition with facts.  Statistical probabilities are not "facts".  I have to operate on the basis of what I KNOW to be true based on the data I'VE collected over, I don't know, 20 years here?  More maybe?  Otherwise, I'm from Missouri, as the saying goes.

I've also repeatedly TOLD you that I don't care what claims anyone makes that are unsupported by facts (including your own AND FD's), and without seeing the data and understanding their process of evaluation of the data, I can neither endorse nor contradict their conclusions.  I'm not going to simply assume you're right about FD lying.  Sorry, but my requirement of evidence applies to you as well as to him.  Beyond that, it has nothing to do with what I wrote in THIS thread, and I'm not inclined to wander down the path to which you're attempting to lead me.  That you seem unwilling to accept THAT is the problem.  Why not try respecting MY position rather than expecting me to simply agree with you?

I hope your day is a good one as well.  I further wish success to all here, though I recognize the statistical unlikelihood of that occurring.  8^b

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Analysis - My thoughts and thanks




@norbertc wrote:


The problems relate to excessive reliance on short-term statistics to predict the future performance of complex investments. Markets are often noisy; many factors can explain short-term performance differences, many having nothing to do with the managers skills. So, I'm skeptical about using momentum or standard deviation to trade fixed income OEFs.


I agree that the methodology is problematic unless one approaches matters in exactly the same way FD claims to (or blindly follows FD in a timely manner - somehow).  I've raised this point myself.


@norbertc wrote:


The other problem relates to performance claims that are not supported by transparent disclosure. That's a no-no on an Internet investment board. As I'm sure you know, there's a lot of disingenuous attitude and pretension in the investing business. I won't tolerate it on our M* Discuss site!  It's a simple matter for any trader wannabe to post trades in real time instead of bragging about successful trades after the fact. Funny thing, these guys will NEVER join our annual Challenge, which has rules about posting trades in real time. I hope that you can understand this issue.

Sure, one's evaluation of the credibility of a claim is going to be based solely on what s/he can independently verify.  That's obviously going to be the case.  Claims made after the fact are literally "baseless" since they have no basis upon which to stand.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Analysis - My thoughts and thanks [DHEAX/DHEIX]


@racqueteer wrote:

@yogibearbull wrote:

@Remotetrader , @racqueteer , DHEAX/DHEIX? There is something in the chart of this short-term bond that 1 wk, 1 mo, 3 mo, YTD, 12 mo data miss.   https://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=DHEIX&p=D&b=5&g=0&id=p57188271533


I see a couple things, yogi.  We have resistance just above, an overbought condition, the start of a MACD downward cross...  To what are you referring?


No.

I meant how this short-term bond fund acted in the March crash. That was inexcusable - like the collapse of old type ultra-short-term bonds in 2008 and the SEC did something about that. But this time, it did nothing.

While IOFIX, SEMPX also acted badly, they were in risky categories [MS, NT or specialized MBS] where investors should have been more careful [but often relying on just recent 3-yr stale data] and they got burned.

But a short-term bond fund?

All these funds at least violated fund liquidity disclosure and positioning rules that are in place now. IOFIX posted a late notice on SEC/Edgar on March 23 [with its bank lines of credit all tapped out but it wasn't willing to hold those debts through its March 31 fiscal year close and showed $0 debt in the Report]. It seems that the SEC only cares about disclosures and funds can just disclose that they may be positioned badly and it is up to investors to figure this out. The last time the SEC acted was on Third Avenue HY collapse and then it went to sleep and several subsequent European fund failures [stocks and bonds] didn't wake it up,

YBB
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Analysis - My thoughts and thanks [DHEAX/DHEIX]


@yogibearbull wrote:

@racqueteer wrote:

@yogibearbull wrote:

@Remotetrader , @racqueteer , DHEAX/DHEIX? There is something in the chart of this short-term bond that 1 wk, 1 mo, 3 mo, YTD, 12 mo data miss.   https://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=DHEIX&p=D&b=5&g=0&id=p57188271533


I see a couple things, yogi.  We have resistance just above, an overbought condition, the start of a MACD downward cross...  To what are you referring?


No.

I meant how this short-term bond fund acted in the March crash. That was inexcusable - like the collapse of old type ultra-short-term bonds in 2008 and the SEC did something about that. But this time, it did nothing.

While IOFIX, SEMPX also acted badly, they were in risky categories [MS, NT or specialized MBS] where investors should have been more careful [often relying on just recent 3-yr stale data] and they got burned.

But a short-term bond fund?

All these funds at least violated fund liquidity disclosure and positioning rules that are in place now. IOFIX posted a late notice on SEC/Edgar on March 23 [with its bank lines of credit all tapped out but it wasn't willing to hold those debts through its March 31 fiscal year close and showed $0 debt in the Report]. It seems that the SEC only cares about disclosures and funds can just disclose that they may be positioned badly and it is up to investors to figure this out. The last time the SEC acted was on Third Avenue HY collapse and then it went to sleep and several subsequent European fund failures [stocks and bonds] didn't wake it up,


Got you.  Agree; pure liquidity issue where there shouldn't have been one.  A short-term fund certainly had no legitimate reason to behave like that.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Analysis - My thoughts and thanks

Rac ...  This is my last post on this.  There is no other interpretation of the data, only his,  Someone mention fund A and he will conclude no good because fund B has better metrics.  Case closed Mr. Stupid for mentioning fund A.  My point is Mr, Knowitall actually knows nothing more than anybody else.  He lists all the funds and interprets the data and went so far as to give us 3 sleep well bond funds that EACH ONE tanked 13%.  And when I asked him to respond he said, well Corona came along.  Yet he criticized my for having 1 fund out of 5 that tanked 13%.  Oh, and he always conveniently used greater interpretation because he always exits before bad things happen.  You can defend him all you want, but he has historically stalked me and criticized me and I only give him back what he gives me.  I know longer see Gatorbyter post and he had same run in with him.  And many other don't post either.  Like someone else we know, he has a high floor but a low ceiling of support.  He once left this Forum and went to Fido because he said smarter more civil crowd there.  For me, this will not end until the IGNORE button is re-invented.  Until then, I will respond when and as I **bleep** well please. 

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Analysis - My thoughts and thanks


@norbertc wrote:

@fred495 wrote:

@norbertc wrote:

Fred,

Sorry, but I think we've lost a lot of strong contributors because of the prolific posting habits of certain individuals who shall not be named. We see things differently. But, if you're satisfied, that's definitely a good thing. 

 

Well, Norbert, as I tried to point out, I am certainly not satisfied by the tiresome and seemingly never ending "prolific posting habits of certain individuals" that seem to be obsessed attacking another poster with nasty personal comments. And, lets not beat around the bush, aren't you really just talking about FD?

Sorry, but we definitely "see things differently". I am in agreement with Racq's quite lucid and rational statement that "I-DON'T-CARE how anyone else claims to be doing. I care about the data they present and the process they're using to evaluate that data".

Fred  


I'm not going to name individuals, but it's more than one.

By the way, I agree that FD has offered good fund ideas. He spends time watching funds and has made many astute and helpful observations.  That's good "data", to use Racq's vocabulary.

Also, FD gave me good advice offline during my trips to his homeland. Thanks to him, I started making regular breakfast drives to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv. Much appreciated!

The problems relate to excessive reliance on short-term statistics to predict the future performance of complex investments. Markets are often noisy; many factors can explain short-term performance differences, many having nothing to do with the managers skills. So, I'm skeptical about using momentum or standard deviation to trade fixed income OEFs.

When I recently explained my concerns about this to FD, he replied with personal insults instead of focusing on the issues I raised. That's troubling, don't you think? 

The other problem relates to performance claims that are not supported by transparent disclosure. That's a no-no on an Internet investment board. As I'm sure you know, there's a lot of disingenuous attitude and pretension in the investing business. I won't tolerate it on our M* Discuss site!

It's a simple matter for any trader wannabe to post trades in real time instead of bragging about successful trades after the fact. Funny thing, these guys will NEVER join our annual Challenge, which has rules about posting trades in real time. I hope that you can understand this issue.

N.


6/29/2020

OK Norbie,

There is only one way we can settle this.  My claim was that as of 5/31/2020 I made over 9% annually for 3 years with SD < 2 per Schwab which has about 95% of my portfolio.  This is pretty good and I can't find it anywhere. 

PV(link) shows that VWIAX made 6.33% with SD=6.88 and SPY made 10.15 and SD=16.84.  

I'm willing to do a zoom session with you and show you my Schwab account performance + SD and then you will report it.

But, if I'm correct you will also post that "FD claims were correct, I was wrong to doubt FD claims and now I look like an idiot"

Challenge is on Norbie.

 

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Analysis - My thoughts and thanks

That's funny, you are going to show him your personal investment data, when you are proved correct he has to publically state he is an idiot?

I don't understand what the data on VWIAX, showing about 6% with a SD of 6.+, compared with SPY has to do with your proof?

Personally I'd find you most credible when you stick to your informative posts and ignore personal conflicts. 

0 Kudos
Announcements