Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : A.I.M Users Group Bulletin Board -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: budweeder who wrote (12065)	7/14/2000 8:17:51 PM
From: Bernie Goldberg	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18928

Hi Bud, That's an interesting question. I haven't done the simulation yet on the period between '90 and '93. I'm not sure I will get to it before we leave for Seattle monday inthe A.M., but it is one I intend to play with. I don't like to mess with the Safes other than one set for stocks and another for most mutual funds. Most funds are less volatile than most stocks. Because of the volatility of UOPIX I use the 10 buy and 10 sell that Mr. L. recommended for stocks. With most regular funds I would go along with Tom's recommendation of 0 buy and 10 sell. It is possible that during the period of '90 to '93 a different set of safes might have worked better with IBM, but how would you possibly know that ahead of time. Then you would have to change the safes in '93 to something else. Now if during this period of time you were investing in something else how would you know which safes to use. There is IMO no way to tell the future. That IMO opinion what makes AIM work so well. As I have so often said how nice it would be to get tomorrow's paper today for about a month. All the people who are trying to change AIM using last year's newspaper as if they had tomorrow's newspaper. I don't believe that works very well for forecasting. Most analysts get paid in the seven figure range they have all sorts of information on the companies they work with that we don't have access to. They are usually on a first name basis with executives and receptionists of the companies they cover. I am continually amazed at how often they are wrong in their analysis. If knowing what they know doesn't help them, I don't see how knowing what happened last year or two or three years ago will help us. It will show us how it would have helped us had we done certain things. Bernie