I'm claiming that you don't know much about statistics, nor much about how risk plays a role in investment decisions.
Well I spend loads of time here pointing out how many of your claims are based on thin air, so I can handle this one.
You have in the past said that I will "lose all my money" despite the fact that you didn't know anything about the makeup of my portfolio other than one or two stocks I owned at the time. Remember that one? What does that say about the thought you put behind your various claims?
The only lengthy exchange I had with you about risk, when we tried to beta-adjust the performance of two stocks, you revealed that you didn't understand how beta relates to risk.
You said that when you adjust stock's performance for their respective beta, if two the stocks decline by the same percentage, the lower beta stock has been a better performer than the high beta stock. You still believe that? It's wrong. What does that say about your understanding of beta?
You also said CSCO's downside risk from Friday is "virtually nil". Do you really still believe that? We'll get to see how much thought you put into that one in less than 12 hours when the market opens.
You see moldy, the difference between you and me is that when I make a claim, I can back it up with evidence. There is a thought process that produces a conclusion. With you, it's just a silly claim, such as the claim that I don't know anything about statistics, but nothing to support that claim. SPY, as we both now know, is not a statistic, it is a derivative of an index. When I didn't know what it was, I did what curious people do - I asked. How this line of questioning produced conclusions in your mind about my understanding of statistics or risk is, as usual, incomprehensible. |
