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.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
Mark Hulbert: Sam Eisenstadt, A Supreme Forecaster, Has Bad News For Stock Investors
FYI: He correctly predicted the past six months’ market performance. His outlook for the next six months will disappoint you. The U.S. stock market will be trading right where it is today in six months’ time — at 2,370 on the S&P 500 Index.
Is it just me, or is the chart in the article saying Mr. Forecaster has an enviable record is actually saying otherwise? Unless that statement means he is right 50% of the time, I'm not seeing it, and I'm being charitable.
I agree that the referenced chart does NOT demonstrate Eisenstadt's superior forecasting acumen. I'm not saying that Eisenstadt is not a superior forecaster, just that the chart is not a good measure of his talents. A more detailed and refined analysis of his forecasts is needed.
Lots of folks admire his work. I'm not familiar with it so I can't offer an assessment.. However, one characteristic of his methodology has made an assessment very difficult. It has changed over time. It is a multi-parameter correlation with the weightings of those parameters changing as data is accumulated. I suspect that even the parameters themselves have been added and subtracted over the entire forecasting period.
Good luck on testing the accuracy of his projections given that evolving methods history.
Thanks Ted. I've long considered Mr. Eisenstadt one of the more credible observers out there based on your previous posts of his forecasts. To be sure, he's not predicting much in either direction.
BTW - Comparing Eisenstaedt with one of your other see-ers, Crazy Cashin, is like comparing night and day.
Comments
I agree that the referenced chart does NOT demonstrate Eisenstadt's superior forecasting acumen. I'm not saying that Eisenstadt is not a superior forecaster, just that the chart is not a good measure of his talents. A more detailed and refined analysis of his forecasts is needed.
Lots of folks admire his work. I'm not familiar with it so I can't offer an assessment.. However, one characteristic of his methodology has made an assessment very difficult. It has changed over time. It is a multi-parameter correlation with the weightings of those parameters changing as data is accumulated. I suspect that even the parameters themselves have been added and subtracted over the entire forecasting period.
Good luck on testing the accuracy of his projections given that evolving methods history.
Thanks for your post.
Best Wishes
BTW - Comparing Eisenstaedt with one of your other see-ers, Crazy Cashin, is like comparing night and day.