The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Investing/Strategies / Retirement Investing


Subject:  Re: The Anti-Motley Fool viewpoint Date:  2/17/1998  2:32 PM
Author:  cameron Number:  1827 of 88772

<<Are you serious? The US economy hasn't been strong in the 20th century? Let me assure you that if you followed a DOGS strategy in the Zambia your average returns would have been quite low.>>

But how would the strategy have done compared to the Zambia market? Even if the average return is "quite low," if it beats the market, you've reached the goal of market-beating returns. Just saying that the average returns would be low doesn't say anything.

My question is, if you don't believe in the DOGS theories because the past performance doesn't prove anything, how do you choose stocks? It seems to me that most any method you might use to determine stocks with gains potential was derived by someone at some point and then tested from past data. If the back-testing indicated good results, you continue to use it. How is this different from DOGS?


Copyright 1996-2018 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us