Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 1
Author: repoonsatad Date: 12/14/00 6:25 PM Number: 39023
Today's Foolish Four column presents the "Foolish Four Research Results". I quote:

At this point, it would be a lot easier to just say, yeah, the critics were right, the strategy was never valid. But the numbers don't support that.
http://www.fool.com/ddow/2000/ddow001214.htm

Wake up for Gardners sake, your numbers precisely support that the strategy was never valid! Strictly speaking the only valid evidence for the effectiveness of the Foolish Four comes from the post-discovery (1996+) period. Here the Foolish Four underperformed by 5.27% per year. Second best, but not perfect, is the 1950-1960 pre-discovery evidence where the strategy outperformed by 2.24% per year. Computing a rough geometric average return of the pre-and post-discovery evidence (allocating 11 years to the former and 4 years to the latter) gives an outperformance of only 0.3% which statistically is the same as 0%. There's no outperformance. Zero.


What is it with you? Everything that anyone else writes is automatically wrong, and everything you write is automatically right!!

No wonder neither TMF nor anyone else with common sense listens to you!

Russ
Print the post  

Announcements

What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Community Home
Speak Your Mind, Start Your Blog, Rate Your Stocks

Community Team Fools - who are those TMF's?
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.
Advertisement