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 : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (36807)	12/19/2000 5:45:04 PM
From: Joshua Corbin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

Speaking of Motley Fool, a Rambus message got Post Of The Day: fool.com OT follows: I think the bigger cautionary tale is that the Foolish Four... I never understood why the Gartners made such a big deal of the strategy. My assumption is that the typical Fool newbie has about $5K in a brokerage account or a $2K IRA as a starting kitty. Even if you could beat the market with F4, you'd lose on commissions and taxes. Anyway, there's a guy over there named Datasnooper who made refuting the F4 into a personal crusade: boards.fool.com Which reminds me. Remember when I warned of a lurker's revolt if the NAZ kept dropping? Well, it happened, but over on Motley Fool. The Rule Breaker portfolio is the center of the ruckus. Part of the problem was that TMF borrowed the mutual fund's trick of boasting high performance over statistically insignificant time periods. boards.fool.com

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (36807)	12/19/2000 11:40:31 PM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

I'm disappointed to learn that the fundamental reasons that I believed explained the past outperformance of the Foolish Four and other Beating-the-Dow strategies may not be valid. The part that surprises me is that they figured out that all of the results they had previously found were the results of statistical anomaly's. Much of what I learned came from the Fool....and I remember reading through the data which had been the basis for the Foolish Four. The conclusions seemed to have a basis in fundamentals and were the result of research done by some very intelligent people. I had always assumed that if the FF wasnt working anymore it was due to the market beginning to discount the method. At least for me, the lesson to be learned is not to take any piece of research for granted. We need to be constantly questioning and refining our assumptions. I think that, in general, this thread has done a fine job of that. One additional comment....the Fool is to be commended for the amount of openess they have in their process. They received data which contradicted their earlier conclusions and didnt try to slant it to provide a better interpretation. Just my two cents.... Slacker