Jurgis,
And yet you spend time defending (maybe that's not how you perceive, but that's how I perceive it) G&K strategy
in discussion with Dr.Id using rather selective examples. Why?
Let me be clear: I don't defend Gorilla Game strategy. Just the opposite, for me perhaps the best value of publishing the Front Office Gorilla Game reports was that the process and results might have convinced people that it's not for them. That goes hand in hand with my opinion that investing in common stocks is something very few investors should be doing. Whatever people decide, they should decide for themselves because it's their money at risk. I've mentioned all of that many times.
When Id wrote that "the Gorilla Game has been shown to be a questionable strategy," I responded that that is true. When he wrote that the "investment strategy ... failed miserably in a bear market," I also responded that that is true. That's hardly the stuff of defending anything. Instead, I was attempting to put his comments in context because his comments provided selective information out of context.
I think it's interesting that you didn't note his use of selective examples but you chose to highlight mine. In the end, it's very, very difficult to use examples that aren't selective. Moreover, when I used my selective examples, I pointed out that they were indeed so by mentioning that they are nothing more than anecdotal examples of "thousands of periods that could have been measured" that could have produced completely different results. In my Front Office reports, I reported all of the unfavorable results as they occured. So, if using selective, real-time examples and pointing them out to readers is a crime, I plead guilty as charged.
Sorry, but that's exactly how "thread's" discussion with Dr.Id looked like.
Jurgis, discussions don't appear smug and superior. It's people that appear that way. It was a personal attack and it's inexcusable.
--Mike Buckley |
