SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Applied Materials
AMAT 339.94+3.3%Feb 11 3:59 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: michael97123 who wrote (55039)11/2/2001 10:43:45 AM
From: daryll40   of 70976
 
Here's my answer to the accountability issue. Heck, I outta NOT even post it here, just go into business being the guru police.

The answer is to devise a mechanism where predictions are graded according to timing and magnitude. Each prediction must be declared at the onset as "an official prediction". Unofficial predictions should not be allowed since they are even more worthless than the official ones.

Then there needs to be a 1,3, and 10 year scorecard. My guess is that longterm it would prove that no one (few?) can truly predict the markets. And if someone does rise to the top, then obviously money will get behind them and they'll get the rewards.

So, if Battman is right for 5 years with predictions of annual Nasdaq rises of 1000 points, say, then he predicts another rise of 1000 points but it falls 4000 points, the magnitude of the drop would wipe out most of his gain. And he becomes defrocked and is forced to declare himself so. Same for Fleckestein. These guys are right much of the time but it's the MAGNITUDE and TIMING that makes it a crystal ball. And their ability to say "yeah, but wait until next year".

Perhaps someone on here with better math skills than I can devise something like this.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext