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.
...Like condensing a 10,000-word UN speech to its core. As if we were unaware. Back in school, I could crank-out a 10-page academic paper in just several hours. But I guess the Washington Post doesn't want ME, eh?
"Meanwhile, the dispute highlights the incomplete nature of the present recovery, which has lasted a long time but, to millions of Americans, still feels unsatisfactory."
This is the important aspect.
Past is not pro-log in this aspect. There is a sea change occurring which will effect the markets but not yet - it isn't being discussed.
I'm guessing that he means "affect". But, I've not had the benefit of his higher education, so what do I know? Also, I'm not sure what being in favor of lumbering has to do with the past. He seems to think that an awful lot of things aren't "being discussed". Odd, most of that stuff is pretty well discussed in the stuff that I read.
Effect and affect are often confused because of their similar spelling and pronunciation. The verb affect usually has to do with pretense . The more common affect denotes having an effect or influence . The verb effect goes beyond mere influence; it refers to actual achievement of a final result <the new administration hopes to effect a peace settlement. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/effect
So Old Joe appears to have it right here. However, if the author had intended that the sea change would cause the markets to proceed (in effect: to set them into motion), than perhaps he really meant effect. ---
The Post has gone downhill. They tried to give it to me for free on my Kindle Fire and I turned them down. There's better things to read even if it costs a little.
@Hank- In that case, it should have read something like "There is a sea change occurring which will have an effect on the markets". Let's not affect to believe that effect and affect are interchangeable... improper usage will affect the language in an unhealthy way, eventually causing undesirable effects.
From Steven Fry: “It is a cliché that most clichés are true, but then like most clichés, that cliché is untrue.”
That’s a pertinent cautionary warning for professional writers like Samuelson. A Cliché can be surely overused, but they are powerful summarizers under certain circumstances when deployed with restraint.
Robert Samuelson has been and is a very good economics writer for decades. He would likely agree that the referenced column was not among his very best. He might have done better with something other then ending it with a modified form of a time-worn cliché.
But in this instance it is perfectly true. Only “time will settle the debate”. The coupling between the economy and Wall Street has never been perfect and is time dependent. The enormous multitude of interactions is far too complex to model with any precision. Forecasting market actions is hazardous duty.
Given the uncertainties, one approach is to make probabilistic estimates for a variety of scenarios. What-if scenarios might contribute to better, but imperfect, decision making. It’s a good policy to model statistically, adjust according to any special circumstances, monitor, and especially to have a reserve that permits flexible reaction to developing situations.
Based on decades of research, Phil Tetlock has documented that forecasts from experts are only marginally superior to those of informed amateurs, and only under certain conditions. He has summarized his findings in a book titled “Superforecasting, The Art and Science of Prediction”. I recommend the book.
Note the “art” inclusion in the title. Science is not enough; there are art and luck components also. Portfolio performance might be improved by conducting a few limited investment experiments within the portfolio itself. Monitoring and reaction flexibility are necessary elements in the process to perhaps enhance returns. Nothing new here for you folks.
Take it easy guys; especially on one another. We can benefit by listening to someone else’s opinion on investment matters, particularly if they differ from our own views. That too is a cliché (they’re hard to escape).
We can benefit by listening to someone else’s opinion on investment matters, particularly if they differ from our own views. That too is a cliché (they’re hard to escape).
Best Wishes.
I beg to differ. Listening to all those other opinions can distract you from your plan and lead you astray. I think the @Junkster would agree with me.
Listening does not necessarily mean doing. The listening is just one of the data collection tasks. The integration of the listening with other data sources is up to the investor. As always, the final decision is the responsibility of that investor. He needs science, art, and luck when managing his portfolio.
Listening does not necessarily mean doing. The listening is just one of the data collection tasks. The integration of the listening with other data sources is up to the investor. As always, the final decision is the responsibility of that investor. He needs science, art, and luck when managing his portfolio.
Thanks for your opinion.
Best Wishes.
+1 another gives you 3! As for science, art, and luck, my experience is very little science and a lot of art and luck. Even more so a lot of independent thinking and not running with the herd.
Today, it is tough to buy a recently published investment book without encountering a chapter that seriously discusses behavioral investing. That topic has become ubiquitous with investment success because many behavioral traps are identified that potentially detract from good investment decisions.
One frequently mentioned behavioral trap is “confirmation bias”. Confirmation bias is a selective screening of likely information sources that only confirm a preconception of a planned action; contrary documentation and alternate options are totally ignored.
I’m somewhat surprised that you conclude that “Listening to all those other opinions can distract you from your plan and lead you astray.”
Certainly researching any subject is exposed to the law of diminishing returns. At some point, enough is enough, and a timely decision is the order of the day. Decision making inertia is an extreme that most investors, especially the seasoned ones, overcome. Often, opportunities are fleeting and action is required.
Investors take that action. Just look at the heavy daily trading volume and the shrinking position holding periods. In many instances, investors are over-reactive and pay a penalty. More rather than less research might be more profitable.
By shortstopping exposure to alternate perspectives, the behavioral research suggests that decision making is compromised in a negative way. Opportunities and options are not recognized.
In general, the potential benefits of more comprehensive research significantly outweighs any added complexities. In a complex world, exhaustive planning, in both peace and war, is essential to increasing the odds of a successful outcome. And even when the exhaustive planning is executed, the plans must be flexible to allow for likely revisions that reflect the realities of a dynamic, uncertain environment.
Given your frequent MFO postings that challenge conventional wisdom, I perceive you as a highly skeptical person. I doubt you will be distracted by competing options or be “lead astray”. You underestimate your ability to sort through the muck and mire. Yes, there’s plenty of that.
Re "lead astray." I think we have too much stray lead flying about now. But I get your drift MJG. Thoughtful post.
Since I butted in here ... Yes, each needs to develop an investment approach consistent with needs, temperament, prior knowledge, new knowledge, etc. This doesn't happen overnight or after digesting one book. In a sense, one's approach to investing never completely ceases to evolve.
Amen to that. I am certainly not recognizable today as the investor (speculator) I was 6 decades ago. Hell, I'm not the investor I was 6 months ago. Change happens as surely as aging does.
EDIT: And you are dead in the water if you stop learning ( yet another cliche ).
Given your frequent MFO postings that challenge conventional wisdom, I perceive you as a highly skeptical person. I doubt you will be distracted by competing options or be “lead astray”. You underestimate your ability to sort through the muck and mire. Yes, there’s plenty of that.
Best Wishes.
And you would be wrong. I have been distracted by others. Looking back over my life of investing. If I would have kept my investing simple and stuck to it, I would have maybe 20 - 25% more net worth, maybe more.
And you are correct - the fear/greed emotional continuum is a factor for us all.
@Junkster has been closer to the investment advisory community and he will tell you they don't know any more then the average person. And, that their main knowledge is how to get paid for giving meaningless advise.
"I perceive you as a highly skeptical person." I am not a skeptical person, nor do I believe I have more than average intelligence. Life has shown me that there is a lot of stupid in the world and if you can avoid 'the stupid' your life can be much better then if you are fooled by it. At times I have been defeated by 'the stupid' because it was presented as authority and I was taken in by it.
Amen to that. I am certainly not recognizable today as the investor (speculator) I was 6 decades ago. Hell, I'm not the investor I was 6 months ago. Change happens as surely as aging does.
EDIT: And you are dead in the water if you stop learning ( yet another cliche ).
Best Wishes.
And you will swamp the boat by taking on all those advisers along the way.
Amen to that. I am certainly not recognizable today as the investor (speculator) I was 6 decades ago. Hell, I'm not the investor I was 6 months ago. Change happens as surely as aging does.
EDIT: And you are dead in the water if you stop learning ( yet another cliche ).
Best Wishes.
And you will swamp the boat by taking on all those advisers along the way.
You have indeed come a long ways Dex in a short time. Remember that hotline you subscribed to a year or two ago. I bet you learned about hotlines and listening to traders who are good at pontificating. Don was never a favorite of mine. Don't get me going on advisory hotlines. As an aside, your HYD having a great day today.
Comments
Actually, at least one additional thing is certain: "The world runs on bullshit".
Credit for this incredibly accurate observation: a former fellow radio technician.
This is the important aspect.
Past is not pro-log in this aspect. There is a sea change occurring which will effect the markets but not yet - it isn't being discussed.
One thing is certain: Time will settle that debate.
One thing is certain: The world runs on bullshit.
Was not criticizing the poster this time, just noting that there is always only one response to apocalyptic thinking: We'll see.
Like investing in a 60/40 domestic balanced index.
Last point noted.
That is, he had unknown unknowns, and he knew that.
http://www.gurteen.com/gurteen/gurteen.nsf/id/there-are-known-knowns
Effect and affect are often confused because of their similar spelling and pronunciation. The verb affect usually has to do with pretense . The more common affect denotes having an effect or influence . The verb effect goes beyond mere influence; it refers to actual achievement of a final result <the new administration hopes to effect a peace settlement.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/effect
So Old Joe appears to have it right here. However, if the author had intended that the sea change would cause the markets to proceed (in effect: to set them into motion), than perhaps he really meant effect.
---
The Post has gone downhill. They tried to give it to me for free on my Kindle Fire and I turned them down. There's better things to read even if it costs a little.
@Hank- In that case, it should have read something like "There is a sea change occurring which will have an effect on the markets". Let's not affect to believe that effect and affect are interchangeable... improper usage will affect the language in an unhealthy way, eventually causing undesirable effects.
(But otherwise a very good guy)
From Steven Fry: “It is a cliché that most clichés are true, but then like most clichés, that cliché is untrue.”
That’s a pertinent cautionary warning for professional writers like Samuelson. A Cliché can be surely overused, but they are powerful summarizers under certain circumstances when deployed with restraint.
Robert Samuelson has been and is a very good economics writer for decades. He would likely agree that the referenced column was not among his very best. He might have done better with something other then ending it with a modified form of a time-worn cliché.
But in this instance it is perfectly true. Only “time will settle the debate”. The coupling between the economy and Wall Street has never been perfect and is time dependent. The enormous multitude of interactions is far too complex to model with any precision. Forecasting market actions is hazardous duty.
Given the uncertainties, one approach is to make probabilistic estimates for a variety of scenarios. What-if scenarios might contribute to better, but imperfect, decision making. It’s a good policy to model statistically, adjust according to any special circumstances, monitor, and especially to have a reserve that permits flexible reaction to developing situations.
Based on decades of research, Phil Tetlock has documented that forecasts from experts are only marginally superior to those of informed amateurs, and only under certain conditions. He has summarized his findings in a book titled “Superforecasting, The Art and Science of Prediction”. I recommend the book.
Note the “art” inclusion in the title. Science is not enough; there are art and luck components also. Portfolio performance might be improved by conducting a few limited investment experiments within the portfolio itself. Monitoring and reaction flexibility are necessary elements in the process to perhaps enhance returns. Nothing new here for you folks.
Take it easy guys; especially on one another. We can benefit by listening to someone else’s opinion on investment matters, particularly if they differ from our own views. That too is a cliché (they’re hard to escape).
Best Wishes.
Listening does not necessarily mean doing. The listening is just one of the data collection tasks. The integration of the listening with other data sources is up to the investor. As always, the final decision is the responsibility of that investor. He needs science, art, and luck when managing his portfolio.
Thanks for your opinion.
Best Wishes.
+1
Definitely agree... +1 gives you 2!
+1 another gives you 3! As for science, art, and luck, my experience is very little science and a lot of art and luck. Even more so a lot of independent thinking and not running with the herd.
Today, it is tough to buy a recently published investment book without encountering a chapter that seriously discusses behavioral investing. That topic has become ubiquitous with investment success because many behavioral traps are identified that potentially detract from good investment decisions.
One frequently mentioned behavioral trap is “confirmation bias”. Confirmation bias is a selective screening of likely information sources that only confirm a preconception of a planned action; contrary documentation and alternate options are totally ignored.
I’m somewhat surprised that you conclude that “Listening to all those other opinions can distract you from your plan and lead you astray.”
Certainly researching any subject is exposed to the law of diminishing returns. At some point, enough is enough, and a timely decision is the order of the day. Decision making inertia is an extreme that most investors, especially the seasoned ones, overcome. Often, opportunities are fleeting and action is required.
Investors take that action. Just look at the heavy daily trading volume and the shrinking position holding periods. In many instances, investors are over-reactive and pay a penalty. More rather than less research might be more profitable.
By shortstopping exposure to alternate perspectives, the behavioral research suggests that decision making is compromised in a negative way. Opportunities and options are not recognized.
In general, the potential benefits of more comprehensive research significantly outweighs any added complexities. In a complex world, exhaustive planning, in both peace and war, is essential to increasing the odds of a successful outcome. And even when the exhaustive planning is executed, the plans must be flexible to allow for likely revisions that reflect the realities of a dynamic, uncertain environment.
Given your frequent MFO postings that challenge conventional wisdom, I perceive you as a highly skeptical person. I doubt you will be distracted by competing options or be “lead astray”. You underestimate your ability to sort through the muck and mire. Yes, there’s plenty of that.
Best Wishes.
But I get your drift MJG. Thoughtful post.
Since I butted in here ... Yes, each needs to develop an investment approach consistent with needs, temperament, prior knowledge, new knowledge, etc. This doesn't happen overnight or after digesting one book. In a sense, one's approach to investing never completely ceases to evolve.
Amen to that. I am certainly not recognizable today as the investor (speculator) I was 6 decades ago. Hell, I'm not the investor I was 6 months ago. Change happens as surely as aging does.
EDIT: And you are dead in the water if you stop learning ( yet another cliche ).
Best Wishes.
And you are correct - the fear/greed emotional continuum is a factor for us all.
@Junkster has been closer to the investment advisory community and he will tell you they don't know any more then the average person. And, that their main knowledge is how to get paid for giving meaningless advise.
"I perceive you as a highly skeptical person." I am not a skeptical person, nor do I believe I have more than average intelligence. Life has shown me that there is a lot of stupid in the world and if you can avoid 'the stupid' your life can be much better then if you are fooled by it. At times I have been defeated by 'the stupid' because it was presented as authority and I was taken in by it.