The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Investing/Strategies / Retirement Investing
|Subject: Re: The Anti-Motley Fool viewpoint||Date: 2/19/1998 5:43 PM|
|Author: orangeblood||Number: 1867 of 77871|
Geez John, you're out of control. You said:
>>>>I find it very humorous that you deleted most of my previous post and did not respond to it. For the other readers here is what orangeblood snipped.
"While both market investors and DOGS need a strong economy, DOGS claim to have the ability to cherry pick the market. Historically, in a bull market DOGS go UP MORE than the market and go DOWN LESS in a bear market. I claim that DOGS will not automatically go up in a bear market (in the future) -- they are indeed sensitive to the strength of the economy. If you try to implement DOGS in Zambia you will find the strategy fails. Or do you think that DOGS are immune to the strength of the economy? If not, then you admit that you need both a strong economy and the ability to cherry-pick the winners. QED"<<<<<
Then, what the heck is this:
>>>While both market investors and DOGS need a strong economy, DOGS claim to have the ability to cherry pick the market.<<<
Dogs claim only a good chance at beating market averages over the long term.
The lead sentence to the graph you said I snipped is right there for all to see. But this is what I expect from you by now.... ignore my points and try to turn the conversation elsewhere. The rest of the paragraph didn't need to be quoted, *especially* since I already rebuted your Zambia point (which you chose to ignore, as usual). AND, NOTE TO EVERYONE: Do you see (above) what John snipped out of my response, and chose not to reply to?
>>>Among their mistaken views is their belief that mutual fund managers (who spend their life at this game) wouldn't copy this technique since 90% of them lost to the S&P 500 recently.<<<
Like most of your other points, this one makes no sense. No one believes this.
>>>Among the problems oragneblood is having is that by *proof* he means something equivalent to a crystal ball that can guarantee that the DOGS won't beat the market.<<<
Yet another inaccuracy on your part. I've never asked for proof of anything. At first I enjoyed this thread, because I thought you might provide some well-thought-out points as to why the Dog theories may be flawed. Boy was I wrong!
>>>I don't think there is any point going on.<<<
Yes, so you've said for the second note in a row now.
>>>Short of a crystal ball, I don't think anything could dissuade orangeblood.<<<
Oh just a little more direct debate on the various points, and less talking in circles and ignoring my points would be just fine, thank you.
|Copyright 1996-2015 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|