The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Social Clubs / Deranged Monkey Criticism
|Subject: Re: Poll: Technical Analysis||Date: 5/15/2013 12:28 PM|
|Author: OneEyeBird||Number: 17137 of 24977|
I'll keep this brief but wanted to reply:
*one corner we have Peter Lynch with a 29% annualized return over a 13 year period with huge fluctuations in AUM, restrictions on what he could buy, and a massive public profile.
*On the other corner we have Brandt with a nice audit letter on his website attesting to the performance of his personal accounts. I did look at the Market Wizards profile on Marty Schwartz in Market Wizards and there is little there beyond mention of winning investment contests and mentions of how well he did in specific years.
*back to Lynch corner, we know he was the head of RESEACH at Fidelity for several years. With Brandt I really don't know who he was and Schwartz apparently was a failed analyst (obviously his take is different).
More importantly is this:
*Lynch wrote two (technically 3 but Learn to Earn isn't for application) EXTREMELY detailed books about his investment technique, 30 or so different articles about investing, and has been interviewed in great detail in various places, including the Train interview in his books. I mean, come on - Schwager's books - the ones I have - are interesting but they tend to all fluff with little that you can learn from. This profile on Schwartz contains nothing you can learn from*.
That's what I want to do - I want to learn.
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.
I didn't say this. What I said it there is a world of material on system A. There ain't zilch on B, C, and D. You don't NEED two ways to make money. Making money can be hard - you just want to be good at one thing, and the thing to do is use the method that:
*you know works (verifiable public records)
*where you can identify people who worked it
*and where you can find DETAILED books by those who worked it filled to the brim with more than detail than you can adequately absord in 100 readings, much less one.
*oh, and if he was head of research that helps too.
Course, I'm biased (and in a slump too).
Just make money.
*in the Schwartz profile:
How did he do it? There were two essential elements. First, he found a methodology that worked for him. Throughout his losing years, Schwartz used fundamental analysis to determine his trades. It was not until he immersed himself in TA that he became successful.....The second element behind Schwartz' transition to success was a change in attitude. As he describes it, he became successful when he desire to win took precedence over his desire to be right.
compare to Train's profile
Lynch's endless quest, his endless searching among companies, is directed above all toward the obvious winner, based on changes to the key variable. As he goes back repeatedly to a given company or industry, he spots changes. Business has been dreadful for a year. Then it's not quite so bad. 'Even when a company just moves up from doing mediocre business to doing fair business, you can make money.'
One is generic and completely useless. The other is specific and absolutely applicable. I mean, let's be honest - if I want to be inspired to do great things, then maybe I'll read Schwager (but you have to giggle a bit at the change in attitude thing and how badly - 10 years! - the guy sucked at fundamental analysis - not that it can't be true but how insipid the author makes it sound) but if I want to DO great things, I'll read Train. And Lynch.
It isn't a fair fight.
I ought to know. I'm living proof...you can learn from Train and Lynch.
|Copyright 1996-2016 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|