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.

Biotech / Medical : 2011 Biotech Charity Contest -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rkrw who wrote (127)	1/11/2011 11:45:09 AM
From: BulbaMan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 400

As you might guess, I’m not sufficiently motivated to go through the individual portfolios to check on the 20% vs. 5% picks. However, I did do a quick check on how well the 20% & 15% picks did vs. the 10% & 5% picks. Of course, there are overlaps within the categories, but the average gain for the 10% & 5% picks was actually greater than for the 20% & 15% picks (up 24% vs. up 18%). And from my personal experience, it’s usually the stocks I like a little that do better than the ones I’m loaded up on.

To: rkrw who wrote (127)	1/11/2011 3:54:57 PM
From: tuck	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 400

A related question -- which would come out of the analysis easily -- would be if the winner's 20% weights did better than the 5% weights. The one time I've won, in '03, I did so with the largest % gain recorded in contest history. Anyone encouraged to follow my picks because of that boast should note I haven't cracked the top 10 since. Lesson: follow repeat winners. But the point is that it was a 20% allocation that really carried it to the finish. Everyone's portfolio did pretty well that year, and mine would not have won with even a 15% allocation to that pick: AMEV -- Applied Molecular Evolution, which got munched by Lilly late that year. Incidentally, I don't think Lilly got anything useful out of it, either. Cheers, Tuck