Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
No 1 unnecessary occupation : Investment Manager No 2 unnecessary occupation : Psychologists
Let's put both of them to pasture.
I know, a bit off topic, but I'm curious....VintageFreak : If you want to put all investment managers to pasture, are you 100% index funds? As you know, without investment managers, we have nothing but index funds.
Oopsy. Printing Mistake. I meant to say "Investment Advisors" on No. 1. On No 2. I could also have said "Bulls*** Artists", but we get them in all occupations so I didn't
Now in my 401K yes, I only use Index funds. Taxable no, but here I'm gradually whittling down to only invest with go anywhere managers.
I want to acknowledge and thank those MFO members who took a timeout to read and fairly reply to my “Crimes Against Logic” post. More importantly, I want to acknowledge but not necessarily thank those who quickly scanned and panned my Crimes post. I say scanned because some of my statements were totality misread.
I did anticipate that some FMO members would not agree with the main thrust of my post and would likely respond with negative comments about my interpretations. Fair enough. However, the hostility level was far over-the-top; way to personal.
I did not anticipate the acrimony that many of the responders vented. I really don’t understand the rancor, the animosity, the personal bitterness displayed in these replies. More than anything else, my submittal was a simple report on Jamie Whyte’s book.
According to the Gunning Fog Index scoring system, my post contained 898 words of which 174 were three or more syllables in length. These were assembled at an equivalent 12.74 educational grade level. That’s not too challenging a composition and is consistent with most of my postings.
My goal is always and only to inform investors, especially on the merits and shortcomings of mathematical and statistical analyses. That’s it! There’s nothing more. I have no hidden agenda. Those who see otherwise are interjecting their own prejudices and biases into the reading. Just like in the technical analysis of market charts, folks are seeing an imagined pattern that is self-invented.
Apparently the hullabaloo is mostly centered around a few words at the end of my submittal: “ ,,,,, please limit your IMHO postings unless they are supported by some analysis and/or stats.” That was intended to be an innocuous and an insignificant fraction of the post.
I meant this as a rather timid suggestion that was directed at the individual Discussion section participant. Perhaps it would have been more clearly stated and less controversial if I had written “please consider limiting” rather than “please limit”.
I was certainly not asking Professor Snowball to monitor or regulate our submittals. I have never, I repeat never, demanded any functional changes to the MFO website. That is well beyond my pay-grade. That is totally in Professor Snowball’s domain.
I definitely have biases and preferences. I have a pecking order. I openly acknowledge these in my posts. I prefer books over articles. I prefer edited articles over ad hoc web discussion commentary. I favor academic research over industry research. I weight practical experience and reliable data over theory. I apply the scientific empirical approach whenever possible. I am always alert to misrepresentations, false claims, and distortions. “Crimes Against Logic” addresses some of these corrosive elements.
That’s why I encourage (never demand) MFO players to provide more information than a flat “what” statement. Before I can logically act on “what”, I want to know “why” and “how”. I view those additional pieces of information as mandatory inputs to good decision making. Basically, I seek explanations.
I’m shocked by the number of MFO contributors who assess my writing style as being too assertive, too arrogant. Since my posts are designed to inform, I feel the need to establish credibility and trust. That’s not best accomplished with a wishy-washy writing style that does not reach a firm position. Reliable references and statistics are the bedrock that grounds any investment decisions. I do careful research to establish my positions, and I do limited fact checking to verify my stats. Reliable statistics are the backbone of investing since universal laws do not exist,
Some folks do like my submittals. Probably the best documented example of that is Roy Weitz’s reaction to them in the old FundAlarm days. After a few years he added an Archive section to his website. That decision was motivated by my postings. The very first post that was placed into the Archive was a piece I contributed. Of the original 7 articles in the Archive section, 2 were written by me (Rono also contributed one). I must be doing something right.
Here is a Link to the FundAlarm history post; just click on the Archive header:
I do not visit MFO daily, but I will continue my schedule and submittals with or without your support. I seek your support and wish that it would be more on an impersonal level. Please focus on my content and not on my style. Like most investors, I have experienced both successes and failures. I make mistakes; let me know about them. So please challenge the substance in my postings and not me personally. That serves no useful purpose, except perhaps for those who can’t accept and fear a divergent perspective.
I really do wish everyone, yes everyone, successful future investment successes. I harbor no grudges. Carrying a chip on the shoulder is a non-productive burden.
"I did not anticipate the acrimony that many of the responders vented. "
You didn't? I wasn't upset, but you have a certain way of presenting your thoughts at times that may tend to cause upset.
"Just like in the technical analysis of market charts, folks are seeing an imagined pattern that is self-invented."
Things like this.
Or:
",,,,, please limit your IMHO postings unless they are supported by some analysis and/or stats.” That was intended to be an innocuous and an insignificant fraction of the post."
You can see how that might have not been taken the right way? It's the internet, people are not going to be able to know that it was intended as an insignificant portion of the post (although they may still disagree with it.)
Saying that a way that people invest (and I think there are a few "chartists" on this board) is based upon an "imagined pattern" that is "self-invented" is not something that those people are going to find endearing. You can disagree with a method of investing, but saying that it is something out of people's imagination may make people not pleased, especially in an internet discussion forum.
My view is this: if someone is doing something that works for them, more power to them. There is not one way to invest. I know what I do and I know what I do may not work for everyone, nor do I expect it to. If someone is a "chartist" and that works for them, hey - great. I have some issues with charting and modern day markets/government intervention, but hey, people are successful with it so more power to them, as far as I'm concerned.
Again, I'm not upset and I think you often offer some interesting points. I'm just offering my 2 cents on maybe a way to change tone a tad so that the responses you get differ.
Comments
Now in my 401K yes, I only use Index funds. Taxable no, but here I'm gradually whittling down to only invest with go anywhere managers.
You are an attention whore. Spare us all and give it a rest.
I want to acknowledge and thank those MFO members who took a timeout to read and fairly reply to my “Crimes Against Logic” post. More importantly, I want to acknowledge but not necessarily thank those who quickly scanned and panned my Crimes post. I say scanned because some of my statements were totality misread.
I did anticipate that some FMO members would not agree with the main thrust of my post and would likely respond with negative comments about my interpretations. Fair enough. However, the hostility level was far over-the-top; way to personal.
I did not anticipate the acrimony that many of the responders vented. I really don’t understand the rancor, the animosity, the personal bitterness displayed in these replies. More than anything else, my submittal was a simple report on Jamie Whyte’s book.
According to the Gunning Fog Index scoring system, my post contained 898 words of which 174 were three or more syllables in length. These were assembled at an equivalent 12.74 educational grade level. That’s not too challenging a composition and is consistent with most of my postings.
My goal is always and only to inform investors, especially on the merits and shortcomings of mathematical and statistical analyses. That’s it! There’s nothing more. I have no hidden agenda. Those who see otherwise are interjecting their own prejudices and biases into the reading. Just like in the technical analysis of market charts, folks are seeing an imagined pattern that is self-invented.
Apparently the hullabaloo is mostly centered around a few words at the end of my submittal: “ ,,,,, please limit your IMHO postings unless they are supported by some analysis and/or stats.” That was intended to be an innocuous and an insignificant fraction of the post.
I meant this as a rather timid suggestion that was directed at the individual Discussion section participant. Perhaps it would have been more clearly stated and less controversial if I had written “please consider limiting” rather than “please limit”.
I was certainly not asking Professor Snowball to monitor or regulate our submittals. I have never, I repeat never, demanded any functional changes to the MFO website. That is well beyond my pay-grade. That is totally in Professor Snowball’s domain.
I definitely have biases and preferences. I have a pecking order. I openly acknowledge these in my posts. I prefer books over articles. I prefer edited articles over ad hoc web discussion commentary. I favor academic research over industry research. I weight practical experience and reliable data over theory. I apply the scientific empirical approach whenever possible. I am always alert to misrepresentations, false claims, and distortions. “Crimes Against Logic” addresses some of these corrosive elements.
That’s why I encourage (never demand) MFO players to provide more information than a flat “what” statement. Before I can logically act on “what”, I want to know “why” and “how”. I view those additional pieces of information as mandatory inputs to good decision making. Basically, I seek explanations.
I’m shocked by the number of MFO contributors who assess my writing style as being too assertive, too arrogant. Since my posts are designed to inform, I feel the need to establish credibility and trust. That’s not best accomplished with a wishy-washy writing style that does not reach a firm position. Reliable references and statistics are the bedrock that grounds any investment decisions. I do careful research to establish my positions, and I do limited fact checking to verify my stats. Reliable statistics are the backbone of investing since universal laws do not exist,
Some folks do like my submittals. Probably the best documented example of that is Roy Weitz’s reaction to them in the old FundAlarm days. After a few years he added an Archive section to his website. That decision was motivated by my postings. The very first post that was placed into the Archive was a piece I contributed. Of the original 7 articles in the Archive section, 2 were written by me (Rono also contributed one). I must be doing something right.
Here is a Link to the FundAlarm history post; just click on the Archive header:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110423104354/http://www.fundalarm.com/wwwboard/wwwboard.html
I do not visit MFO daily, but I will continue my schedule and submittals with or without your support. I seek your support and wish that it would be more on an impersonal level. Please focus on my content and not on my style. Like most investors, I have experienced both successes and failures. I make mistakes; let me know about them. So please challenge the substance in my postings and not me personally. That serves no useful purpose, except perhaps for those who can’t accept and fear a divergent perspective.
I really do wish everyone, yes everyone, successful future investment successes. I harbor no grudges. Carrying a chip on the shoulder is a non-productive burden.
Best Regards.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.geckorecruitment.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/smiley_face.jpg
You didn't? I wasn't upset, but you have a certain way of presenting your thoughts at times that may tend to cause upset.
"Just like in the technical analysis of market charts, folks are seeing an imagined pattern that is self-invented."
Things like this.
Or:
",,,,, please limit your IMHO postings unless they are supported by some analysis and/or stats.” That was intended to be an innocuous and an insignificant fraction of the post."
You can see how that might have not been taken the right way? It's the internet, people are not going to be able to know that it was intended as an insignificant portion of the post (although they may still disagree with it.)
Saying that a way that people invest (and I think there are a few "chartists" on this board) is based upon an "imagined pattern" that is "self-invented" is not something that those people are going to find endearing. You can disagree with a method of investing, but saying that it is something out of people's imagination may make people not pleased, especially in an internet discussion forum.
My view is this: if someone is doing something that works for them, more power to them. There is not one way to invest. I know what I do and I know what I do may not work for everyone, nor do I expect it to. If someone is a "chartist" and that works for them, hey - great. I have some issues with charting and modern day markets/government intervention, but hey, people are successful with it so more power to them, as far as I'm concerned.
Again, I'm not upset and I think you often offer some interesting points. I'm just offering my 2 cents on maybe a way to change tone a tad so that the responses you get differ.
Folks, some of us need to take a deep breath and lighten up...
Regards,
Ted