The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Social Clubs / Deranged Monkey Criticism

URL:  http://boards.fool.com/i-was-curious-and-looked-him-and-up-and-viewed-30683907.aspx

Subject:  Re: Poll: Technical Analysis Date:  5/14/2013  5:53 PM
Author:  MDCigan Number:  17126 of 20362

I was curious and looked him and up and viewed his performance which as you note is very impressive. Still, I can't help but get this odd feeling in my stomach that personal portfolio returns have little to do with returns associated with OPM. I know this because I've experienced this issue myself, esp. as AUM grows.

I'd have to double check but I think at one time Peter was managing OPM. I absolutely agree there is a difference between managing personal money and OPM both in terms of the mentality, concerns you have to think about, and at some point scalability of the approach. That said, I don't think the robustness or validity of a particular analytical technique or method is either increased or decreased depending on whether the money is personal money or OPM.

Perhaps this is why I remain skeptical of TA MDC cause I don't know of anyone who actually manages AUM for others who points to TA as a primary source of their technique.

I'm going to respectfully suggest there is some element of selection/confirmation basis at work here. You've probably made no effort to find or research individuals who fit that bill. If I could say just one thing, it would be read the Marty Schwartz interview in Market Wizards. All that said, just because technique A works for one person doesn't mean it will work for someone else. Some people make their money reading charts (Brandt), some people make their money trading global macro (Soros), and some people make their money focusing on individual businesses (Lynch).

Perhaps it is my background in weight training and bodybuilding where I've been exposed to various training protocols and know that various systems can "WORK" that I simply find perplexing the view that says I made my money using analytical system A therefore that means that systems B, C, and D CANNOT POSSIBLY WORK.

My problem, NOT THAT IT MATTERS, is I couldn't ever find someone with a verifiable track record who could teach it in terms where I could apply it. I'm looking for BOOKS of course.

FWIW, Brandt's track record has been verified. I have his book, and for me personally I thought it was useful. Maybe pick it up, and save it for toilet reading. You can always flush it away once you are done, but maybe you will find it an interesting read.

I'm glad you posted this - makes a lot more sense though I have to admit that if I thought I was horribly off in my fundamental analysis of something I'm not going to go there. You know I've written this a million times but you clearly write well, express yourself well, and get so many things that I can't help but think your talents are completely wasted on anything to do with TA. As a analytical person, I bet your ability to analyze business models - the easy ones, the ones I get - wouldn't be much of a stretch. Whether it would keep you interested is another matter entirely.

Thank you. I genuinely appreciate this. I don't see it as either/or or mutually exclusive. In fact I believe the most powerful combination would be both kind of like an MMA fighter who has both extreme skill and extreme strength (instead of just one) or both a great stand-up fighting and great ground fighting. Unfortunately, right now I have a corporate day job that has nothing to do with financial markets so right there is 50+ hours I could be doing mucho business model analysis. Hopefully, some day in the not too distant future I can ditch it and focus all my time and efforts on the markets.


as usual, just 2c
Copyright 1996-2014 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us