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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BGR who wrote (54997)	4/7/1999 4:11:00 PM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

BGR, Nope, my best argument is that academics don't know feces from Shinola, have never made any money of their own or helped anyone else do so, and that their arguments should only be given consideration by those who want to pass tests in school. Fortunately, I have been out of school for awhile and find that their silliness does not conform to the real world.

To: BGR who wrote (54997)	4/7/1999 4:50:00 PM
From: Mama Bear	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

BGR, I think it's much easier to predict stock price fluctuations short term than long term. I don't have much problem knowing where CSCO will trade 5 minutes from now (when the market is open of course), but darned if I know where it will be in a year. Of course I believe that folks buy and sell stocks for a reason other than a flip of the coin. I'm not sure how you can be so sanguine about the certainty of the future. Barb

To: BGR who wrote (54997)	4/7/1999 6:24:00 PM
From: David Rosenthal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

BGR, I have followed your discussion with Michael over the last few days and have to say that I have rarely been able to understand the case you are making. I do understand the 90/10 approach. I understand taking out options on way overvalued/undervalued stocks and looking for triples+ while I haven't a clue about what you are recommending as a method for stock selection. I understand that a loss of 5% relative to a comparable average loss of 10% is still a loss. I understand Mike Burke's track record, which seems to exceed those average mutual fund/market returns which I thought was your measure of success. And I definitely understand a 10% absolute risk and I don't have a clue what you are saying about adjusting your returns for risk. I guess you are using some statistical models. During my career I worked on many predictive scientific algorithms that used time history to predict future behavior. They are comforting black boxes where you plug in the numbers and they will almost always give you a result. However, you could tweak the weights and number of inputs and number of variables all you want. You could never have great confidence in these systems because you knew your model was incomplete. And you could always find cases where the real world wasn't modeled. In short: what Mike has stated is a common sense approach that everyone can understand and has been proven to work over an extended period of time. It has also worked for a bear in a great bull market, which suggests robustness. If you really want to blow holes in his system then you had better stop asking Mike to do it for you. Map Mike's approach to your approach. Show us why yours works better. Show the inherent risk in his trades. Make your case. Dave