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 : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (87017)	9/28/2007 1:01:40 PM
From: forceOfHabit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

sea, So your implication/allegation now is that Hussman had other funds and has killed them all now that HSGFX has done well? I neither made, nor make, any such implication/allegation. "Survivor bias" does not require any collusion in terms of the ownership of the stocks/funds in question, nor any deliberate intent to mislead on anybody's part. It is an inherently natural statistical phenomenon in tracking any population where less successful members drop out or die off. Maybe you could start with this and see where it leads: en.wikipedia.org You might also want to look at the concept of mean reversion and performance attribution. Just to make it simple, in Hussman's case, there were hundreds(? - I assume) of money managers who started out at the same time as he. Only the ones who were successful initially are still around (and being followed) espousing their views today. Are they around because they had/have alpha? Or are they simply the (randomly determined) survivors from the initial period (say, 5 years from inception)? I repeat, as for Hussman, I don't know, and have no opinion one way or the other. habit