In referring to specific studies where one attempts to project future returns on past history I have the following concerns.First and foremost, the numbers of variables and intangibles in any given situatuion are such that drawing a conclusive outcome to a future event based on like events in history make such a generlization suspect. How would one or several differences in the next decade change the oucome of what appears to be an identical event in the past. While I do agree that the outcome of history do seem to repeat themselfes, the path that got us there are not always the same.As to the logic of his book; this too can be explained by the fact that he is forecasting based upon the facts that he cares to present and taken in that context one can't argue with him.I also believe that it is a human desire to quantify and qualify what we do with logic and hard facts. I would not discount the importance of the study of history or of basing one's actions on such studies, but it can be overdone to the point where one believes he has " a system ".In a nut shell my two cents is.--Read all you can, don't believe all you read.and ----What do I know, do what you want, I for sure can't say he is wrong.-----------UGLY
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra