[Chat - Data Mining And The Wisdom Of Father Guido Sarducci]
Pat,
1. <<I appreciate your forthrightness and humor.>> Surprise! I've
occasionally chuckled at some of your posts as well. I have no
comment about whether or not you are forthright (which is not the same
as honest (see below). It's a "Wisdom Of WOMPR" thing. See my prior
post of the same title
2. <<I believe in integrity>>
Good. That makes two of us. The conventional wisdom can be wrong for
a variety of reasons -- some of which involve dishonesty, and some of
which do not.
It is certainly *possible* that a person of sterling character
might report something as being an established fact when in reality it
was false. For example, there's an old party game in which you line
up even a very small number of people in a row, whisper just one
ordinary sentence in the ear of the first, and instruct each to pass
it along in a whisper. Intellectually everyone expects that the story
will probably change a little as it gets passed along, but I once saw
this actually demonstrated in a room full of pretty bright clowns, and
was amazed at how quickly the story "mutated." If the person ultimately
reporting the story has sources who are speaking from memory rather
than true source materials, or are simply tired and overworked (where
have I read about a failure to return calls promptly?), or are employed
in the investor relations department because they lack the technical or
business skills to flourish elsewhere (and therefore may not actually
understand the information they are trying to pass along), the chance
for error grows. And if the the story has to pass through one or more
people at a brokerage firm, or maybe even more than one brokerage
firm, before it gets to the "reporter," the chance for error multiplies
exponentially. And I haven't even mentioned the possibility that the
Wall Street crowd might have an incentive to intentionally "skew" the
"data" that the reporter is seeking to publish.
Not yet convinced that the conventional wisdom is wrong a
significant percentage of the time? Try throwing in the fact that
the most *knowledgeable* sources of information (i.e, the AMTX
corporate officers) face potential exposure under the securities laws
in *numerous* ways every time they talk to the "reporter." There are
many misconceptions here about how those laws work. Does anyone
think that AMTX management is so clueless that they don't realize that
their words will be relayed to shareholders in this or a similar forum?
This is certainly a shareholder group with such modest expectations that
no corporate officer would think twice about the possibility of being
sued by a disgruntled shareholder who bought at or near the top (say
maybe $36/share in 5/96). And I certainly wouldn't expect any AMTX
officer to be aware of the tremendous expectations prevalent among AMTX
shareholders here. You wouldn't expect them to know anything about
Internet access for stock information, would you?
Is it any wonder that when AMTX management does speak to the "reporter,"
they do so in *code*? [I ain't makin' that up - but I can't find the URL
now].
If you do your "data mining" in the above fashion, what is likely
to happen? (WARNING WILL ROBINSON - INDEPENDENT THOUGHT ALERT!) You
get a few treasured nuggets of information, and a lot of trash with it.
Problem is, if you assume everything in your sluice box is a nugget because
you have an emotional need to believe in the "atomic bomb blast" approach,
you never know up front which is which! Of course we can't reconcile
everything in our sluice box! Some of it's nuggets, but some of it's
trash, and that's true no matter how hard the "reporter" works, and
independent of the reporter's integrity! If the data mining process is
flawed, no miner gets all nuggets
3. <<I believe in integrity between who I am --- named, an individual, a
unique human being, accountable to myself and to others --- and what I post.
I doubt that there's much argument that I'm also an individual and
unique human being (well OK, maybe just unique but not a human being -- I
did suggest I could be an alien life form in a prior post, and I guess
that got into the sluice box somehow -- I do get credit for unique, though,
don't I?)
As for accountable, each of us can be readily critiqued for what we
post here, and will be. That suffices. The fact that you could be
orally critiqued on a face-to-face basis over dinner in Vegas by an
extremely small percentage of the people who post here doesn't make
you any more accountable than me. There's nothing anyone can tell you face
to face that can't be reduced to writing and posted or e-mailed to me.
Or do the people who try to hold you "accountable" use some sort of fancy
3D graphics with charts and tables and 3-ring binders and easels with laser
pointers and overhead projectors and loudspeakers and stuff that won't pop
up on my computer screen? If so, Way Cool! Especially if their amplifiers
go all the way to 11!
On the other hand, if you're suggesting that you've given investment advice
to people who post here and can be held responsible for any losses they may
incur as a result of believing what you post, that one's all yours. But I'm
pretty sure that's not what you meant by "accountable."
4. <<Yes, you provide alot of good information and it's not taken for granted. Yet,
without knowing your background or what your position in Amati is, how do I
know your motives?>>
If my information is verifiable, and you do your homework by verifying its
accuracy and THINKING FOR YOURSELF, any "motive" I may have is completely independent
of your investment decisions. Assume two hypothetical scenarios. In scenario one,
verifiably accurate information is presented to you, but with a faulty analysis
because the presenter is attempting to trick you into a particular investment action.
IF you verify that the information is accurate, and IF YOU THINK FOR YOURSELF,
you will discover the fault in the analysis that makes it incoherent,
apply appropriate analysis to the raw but verifiably accurate data, and make a good
investment decision.
In scenario two, the same presenter presents the exact same verifiably
accurate information, but this time makes a coherent analysis as well.
What happens? You verify the data and STILL THINK FOR YOURSELF, this
time confirming that the presenter's analysis is coherent, and you again
make a good investment decision.
Two identical scenarios, differing only in the motive of the presenter, and a good
investment decision both times. And note that since the verifiability of the data
and the coherency of the analysis are independent of what's on the
presenter's name tag, it makes no difference what the name tag says.
On the other hand, if part of your investment approach is (1) to believe that the
presenter's data or analysis is accurate merely because of what's printed on the
presenter's nametag, or (2) to accept the presenter's analysis without THINKING
FOR YOURSELF to check its coherency, then you might be duped.
The key point, however, is that you cannot possibly be duped if you (1)
verify the accuracy of the presenter's data, and (2) THINK FOR YOURSELF. "Doing your
homework means always doing both.
5. <<Without a rooted, traceable identity, how easy to slip away. As Keats had written on
his grave, "Here lies one whose name was writ in water." Not true in his case, but so
easy here.>>
One day the circus performed in St. Peter's Square in the Vatican, and a huge crowd was
expected because the performance had been announced on the World Wide Web. It was
even rumored that the Pope himself might appear to watch the performance, and excitement
was running at a fever pitch among us clowns. Which one of us might be able to make the
Pontiff smile? Each of us wore wore prominent name tags that day, and each of us expected
to literally burst with pride if the live Amati-cam coverage of the event showed that
we had made the Pontiff smile. We wanted the world to know the names of each clown who
helped make the Pontiff smile. And there he was, in that cute little Pope-mobile thing,
right down front.
As the plastic Volkswagon Beetle with all 16 clowns inside was about to roll from behind
the stage and into the center ring, in front of the assembled throng, I noticed that one
of the ropes just outside the bigtop was starting to unravel. I bolted from the Bug and
grabbed the rope while the rest of the clown troop advanced into the spotlight.
I knew that the whole big-top might collapse if somebody didn't secure the rope, and then
none of us clowns would see the Pope smile. By the time I got the rope fully secured, here
came the plastic VW Bug, rolling backstage. All of the other clowns were no longer on
the Amaticam, but they were obviously excited, hugging one another, shaking hands and
pounding each other on the back for real, not knocking each other down
like they did in the act. I knew then that the Pope had smiled, but since the circus
was leaving later that day, my name would never be associated for posterity with the
clown troop that made the Pope smile.
As we were breaking down the bigtop, I spied Father Guido Sarducci, standing next to
a big sign that said "This is a no-smoking facility." Unbeknownst to me, he had seen
everything that happened that day. When I walked near him, he took a long drag on his
cigarette, blew a smoke ring that wafted into the air and just hung there, and looked me
square in the eye. I'll always remember what he said next:
Bozo-a my son, don't you never a-forget. Just-a because you did notta getta you face
and-a you name-a-tag onna da Amati-a-cam for da whole whoorld to-a see, that don't-a
mean that you did notta help make-a da Pope a-smile. You can a hang-a you hat widda
dem high-a-faluttin' poet guys from-a Inga Land, and-a from-a Scot Land, and-a from-a
where-ever, iffa dat's what you-a wanna do. But-a *always* remember, it's amazin' a
what you canna accomplice, iffa you don't-a care who getts-a da credit. Let's a-go
have-a a beer from-a Mil-waukee!
Regards,
Bozo-a Da Clown
P.S. Real life may intrude for a while, but as Arnold said in his best
Austrian Terminator accent:
Ahhl be back! |
