MrB, here's my unsolicited critique of your practice column...
>Prognosticators: A Market Unto Themselves alternate title Looking Backwards At the Forward Projections
["Looking Backwards at Forward Projections" is my favorite choice of titles. Nice play on words here.]
>That leaves only 100 writing days left for the stock gurus, notable and nameless alike, to spin the divining rods.
[My grandfather used a divining rod to pinpoint the location for his water well in Texas. He hit water dead-on. I like the analogy, and you could have expanded on this idea to great effect - creating heightened interest at the outset of the column. Nice attention grabber.]
>Whilst other investors were using this July 4th to land the first scorpion on the moon via Roman Candle, or sail the Mosel via San Francisco Bay, I have spent this afternoon pondering the effects of guru predictions upon the market, the individual, and portfolio performance. Obviously, I have no life.
[A life of pondering the effects of guru predictions certainly beats the harrowing experience of loading live scorpions onto bottle rockets. I thought we had the scorpion problem solved, but encountered three yesterday. Rather than give them a joy ride, we simply smashed them to a pulp with a shoe before they had a chance to sting our dog's noses.]
>Because one afternoon allows only limited research, this study is based upon a rather small statistical sample. It should be viewed, then, as a basis for further investigation and not a complete, airtight survey.
[Smooth move. I like it. It adds great credibility to one's presentation when the constraints are acknowledged up front.]
>When judging the further performance of these securities, what amount of credit is due
[Are you judging the securites, the prognosticators, or both? Your objective isn't exactly clear here.]
>Attempting objectivity
[I like the humor. Also, it leaves you a little "wiggle-room".]
>the timeless tradition of an Economist never reaching a conclusion will be honoured.
[Ouch! Bittersweet! Neat. I like the way you capitalized "Economist" for emphasis.]
>This link accompanies my survey.
[Nice chart. Well done.]
>Is it not reasonable to think that a percentage of this readership can affect the apparent performance of the stock?
[Good point. It would interesting to know the actual publication dates, and tie these to the stock price action. But that's probably best left to another study.]
I really appreciated your column! Most of all because it provided much food for thought, and you clearly stated your constraints at the outset - that it wasn't intended to be an airtight presentation.
One interesting variation of your chart would be to change the Y axis. Instead of making the Y axis stocks, you could make it percent change in the prognosticator, or guru's picks, and plot it against time on the X axis. That would vividly clarify who turned in the best forecast, and over what period of time. That is - if you want the emphasis to be on the gurus, as opposed to the stocks.
Now that I've picked apart your column, maybe I'll write a practice column of my own, for your critiquing pleasure. <g>
Nice work.
Ice
|
