SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Pastimes : Laughter is the Best Medicine - Tell us a joke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Mike Sawyer who wrote (5614)5/22/1998 7:03:00 PM
From: Robert Morris  Respond to of 62552
 
Here's a good one comparing letters from Penthouse and NASA using
conventional mutual fund analysis

From: globefund.com
.....
Management style can explain the vast difference in performance
between the hundreds of mutual funds that invest in essentially the
same three hundred stocks of the TSE index. A good analogy for
this type of diversification is to consider two documents. The first
is a letter to Penthouse Forum and the second is a thesis on advanced
rocket propulsion for NASA. They may be similar in length and even
have the same publisher (since the same people publish Omni and
Penthouse).
However, the style they are written in and the use
they make of identical words would vary greatly. In comparing these
two documents using conventional mutual fund analysis, we would see
many of the same words. For example, the word 'the' may make up 8 per
cent of both documents. Or, consider the two documents by their top
five word 'holdings':

Word Penthouse NASA

thrust 5% 5%
extension 3% 3%
rear entry 1% 2%
after-burn 3% 1%
payload 1% 4%


To extend the analogy, there is little 'asset' diversification and no
geographic diversity. But there is no question that one of these
documents would be very appropriate for a certain group of people and
the other would be completely unsuitable. Yet the percentage of each
word they use is very similar.

...........