You have all these opinions that don't match the facts.
I am not the one who held a GOOG short from 180 or so while GOOG climbed the "wall of worry" to 320 and said it would be 225 by october - so I don't know what you are basing that on - hehe.
Who is John Henry?
Now I posted a long song by johnny cash about who john henry was - you don't know johnny cash either do you? - there is always GOOG to ask - you know I can already tell our very different backgrounds with different cultural comprehension will make the "in" stuff not work so well. He was a legend MOO - he was the MOO of his day - no machine or investing algorithm or big iron was going to beat him either. He was gonna show that machine who was boss - just like you say about the articles I post about the individual trying to beat the university research team with their computers and models. In his case he was not going to be beat by a machine digging tunnels. In the legend he did beat the machine, but it killed him. A real underdog.
I am in the US, but most of my money is in Aus and I bought the Australian Dollar when it was cheap.
Well I am all for diversification, but if you are going to stay in the USA now and work here and live here - bring some of that wealth over - hehe. I watched an economics special on keynes this past weekend, the basic conclusion of the special was he convinced everyone that wage inflation had to happen for the economy to ultimately pick up - all those good government works programs gave people wages. That we just needed to deficit spend more - another economist I know - www.mosler.org - he preaches this too. As we have witnessed the global race to the bottom for the cheapest worker with africa being the bottom I guess and the h3 hummer being made there - I wonder if the current president understands what keynes was preaching back in his day - wage inflation for the worker in the USA must happen for the economy to really make progress. The special went on to say how all this money was available for the businesses back then - but no one would borrow it - because no one would buy thier stuff - because no one had the wages to buy it etc etc. Anyways Kudlow and other supply siders seem to not talk about wage inflation much on their websites or shows - I see all these companies with big profits - but only the CEO getting the big money - according to the special on keynes - you needed the wage inflation in the common USA worker - not the hot shot martha stewart.
You know I watched this program about the demotion of the top army purchasing person - she worked with the army corps of engineers and talked about all the corruption with haliburton and becthel and KBR and such - how the workers and small businesses were not being given the money or contracts you know - also seemingly in defiance of what Keynes preached was the good medicine for the USA - anyways she was threatened that if she didnt lie, cheat, and steal like the rest she would be sent to iraq and her people would be sent to iraq - ACTIVE fighting parts of IRAQ - if she refused she would be fired. Then I watched bill oreilly and he said all these claims that people make about being sent over to IRAQ or FORCED there is BS - I am ashamed at mr. oreillys reporting - it seems that is a real issue according to this contracting/purchasing person.
In the long run stocks will rise with increasing GDP and the profit share of GDP.
I could have sworn buffet thinks our GDP aint what it used to be. I think I read he said we don't make much anymore but debt. Our debt service related to that GDP aint what it used to be either eh? I think I read over on the re thread it is better today because the expensive debt has been replaced with cheap debt - I don't understand why all these folks get so cranky then talking about debt if our debt is better/lower now than in the 70's.
In the medium term with changes in the interest rate. But I am looking in my post at TA, not FA. Just looking at the behavior of the series. I do think a lot about FA too of coruse, but that is not "the model"...
I understand, as was said before - its just another tool in the toolbox - the more tools the better no?
I don't have a forecasting model or use one. All the TA methods I use look for turning points and oversold/undersold. Also there are some well known longer cycles and based on resistance and support levels, gaps, and Bollinger Bands people can guess where a stock will go to. But this isn't forecasting really the probabilities are much too fuzzy.
Resistance, support levels, you sound more and more like Mr. Phil Grandie everyday - he also says he does not know where a stock will go - he uses resistance and support levels to take bets on the direction of stocks and uses close stops in case the bets are wrong - I heard yesterday he has 2500 GANG members - at 40 dollars per member each month - that is a lot of money - why should that high school dropout make so much money for saying the same things top phd's say? Doesn't seem fair eh? I bet you are not making 100K USD per month.
The test is alpha - risk adjusted excess return. And I have a slightly positive alpha over the entire time I have been investing and in the last three years a VERY positive alpha and rising. So I must be doing something right :) I've posted a chart of that too. Jay has excess return this year I am not sure about past years. Would be interesting to check the data. I measure return against the MSCI Gross World Index as that is an appropriate benchmark.
I see - my redneck friend who bought 2 stocks - GOOG and WWE a year ago - did he outperform the General? My new york friend who put all his money in VDE 1 year ago - did he outperform your portfolio. They read a lot less than you or I do I bet, think about it a lot less too probably. MSCI - that is morningstar right? Over on the diehards board some of the phd econometric folks are having problems with the morningstar folks and style boxes and such - says they are students of those fama french guys whose models are not valid.
What I am saying is that the Elliott Wave theory is not as precise as Prechter or others like to make out. That is my "scientific" assessment of it. But it is much more useful than the naysayers would say.
My grandaddy used to always tell me the devil is in the details. Precision - ah the precision. I had this tesla type talk to me about electricity once - he was from croatia this kid - the homeland of his hero - and he had all these great ideas and theories - and he wanted some scientist type to make his dream a reality - but when told to do some of his own experiments by our professors - he just couldn't make them work - the devil was always in the details David. I just want to make our investing better, and the more devils we can exorcise and the more details we can find that are helpful - the better for us all.
Fundamentals were far more useful to buffet than TA right? Am I wrong you think in saying the richest investors in the world like Buffet use more FA than TA? I mean if true MOO - buffet and others that were really successful used FA - then why use TA - the proof is in the pudding eh? I understand there are TA magazines and such - I have seen them discussed here and there - I have heard some of these TA radio guys like the WIZ talk about jessie livermore - a trader who blew his brains out later in life - who are the most successful TA people you think?
They try to program it precisely in a simple algorithmic way, fail and then say it is no good.
Now MOO I have friends - computer friends in wall street places that have very simple and very complex algorithms doing much of the work of wall street.
This professor at RPI - Selmer Bringsjord argues that the human brain is not a computer in the traditional algorithmic sense, but something beyond that. Maybe our brains can do things that current computers cannot.
My AI professor that worked with the GOOG folks would not read penrose or kurzweil - he said that was all BS - that spiritual machines would never be possible because only human brains could touch the mind of god - now he was more intelligent than me - but I could never accept this fundamental belief of his.
Thinking stochastically and probabilistically is hard. You want deterministic rules, there are none.
Currently I just want to know what mix and match of all the tools in your toolbox gave the closest approximation of what happened with GOOG - I understand nothing will predict it 100% - but what predicted it best? You are wrong in your assumption, I already post many times Phil Grandie plays the probabilities - he also has no deterministic rules - but he is just a high school drop out with bad dyslexia and mild alzhiemers I think. He says almost everyday he cannot predict stocks - he can just play the patterns and the probabilities - seemingly what you keep saying - but then you slam him - what am I missing? Either his probability plays are the best way to invest or they aren't - you can't have it both ways MOO.
Yes and if all those guys weren't there the time series would be very different... You and other people just keep throwing up FA reasons why some TA method won't work.
Look I have a redneck friend that bought a lot of WWE and GOOG about a year ago - your TA showed you 225 by october - I do not think that is going to come to fruition - I could be wrong and GOOG collapse in the next couple weeks - my redneck friend with his Miller Lite brain seems to have made more wealth than your TA - your TA seems to have failed - I just want to see what mix and match of all your TA tools would have been more correct. So I will ask again - having the data for GOOG from jan 1 to sept 27 - what mesh of TA tools most closely predicted the real moves on the chart?
None of those arguments make any sense.
Huh? You said 225 by october based on your TA models right? Am I wrong in that statement - 225 by october - the TA model was wrong - I am just asking what mix of TA tools would have been closer to what really happened? Its like the FED model - I have read a few academic papers on why there are possibly better models - I am for always getting better models if possible. Perhaps the fed model is the best we can do - our one candle in the darkness. Phil says to play the probabilities - he seems to think like you - makes 100K a month for talking that way - and you don't have good things to say about him. RE GOOG and PHIL - he has said for a long time now he does not know where GOOG is gonna go - he never told his GANG to get into it that I remember - but he said if you are in it - keep riding it up and just place good stops in to protect yourself.
What it shows is you don't understand the idea of time series analysis.
Perhaps I do not, I do know how to use the SI search and I already posted where you said 225 by october using your TA - were you using your time series analysis for that? Regardless - what mesh of your TA tools most closely predicted the real movements? If none could track closely over the past 9 months - which mix tracks most closely before it gets too divergent from reality? One of my investment guys is a chartered market technician - he has not done very well this year playing against the program trading of the computers of the big guys I don't think. He has so many TA tools - I bet with his 100 million under management he probably even has some TA tools you do not, but maybe he doesn't. You know now that I think about it - he has never specifically told me what TA tools he uses - I think I will ask him specifically - get to the devil in the details if you will - hehe.
That's OK, heaps of physicists etc. out there don't either. They believe in determinism and don't understand a stochastic model.
Not the weather guys/chaos modelers eh? hehe
So are you telling me you cannot find a mix and match of TA tools that in anyway closely tracked the real movements of GOOG for the past 9 months? If so why would you continue to waste your time with things that Buffet doesn't ever talk about using. I think you can MOO - if we can track hurricanes and the chaos of weather systems - certainly the right mix and match of your tools can track GOOG somewhat no?
I don't think there is much point to discussing it further. Seems you are just thinking on a completely different wave length to me...
David, you are telling me your time series analysis TA can give you the turning points for GOOG - it is good - better than the naysayers say - elliot wave not perfect - but good - ok - I am asking of all the TA tools you know and use - and given the past year history of GOOG movements - which tool or mix and match of TA tools used would have most closely matched the real turning points of GOOG? If you want to quit in disgust - I understand. I don't know how to make my question any simpler - what mix and match of your TA tools would have been best for GOOG? What am I not understanding that you won't answer? |
