UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (4) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: WayneOwl Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 69  
Subject: Top 20% Date: 1/24/2004 9:09 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Howdy:

I read John Mauldin for other reasons but here's something I came across that may be of interest to MF Investors.

http://www.frontlinethoughts.com/article.asp?id=mwo012304

Best 'o' luck
Wayne
Print the post Back To Top
Author: jammerh Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 50 of 69
Subject: Re: Top 20% Date: 1/24/2004 2:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Thanks Wayne, interesting article. While I agree with most of it I have to take issue with the section on Drehman's criticism of analysts.

"Analysts Are Useless...David Dreman points out in a study that he conducted from 1982 through 1997 analysts were ON AVERAGE wrong by 200%. (Forbes, July 8, 2002)"

You can't be wrong by 200%. This is exaggeration to the point of overkill. You can only be wrong by 100%, and even this number is dubious.

I suspect most analysts would have difficulty being wrong all the time even if they tried.

So it's probably safe to assume they're right - at least some of the time.

This thinking comes from Drehman's "...bash the analysts" school. It's easy to do. Analysts are right out there making calls which tend to be overly optimistic. The companies they work for discourage "SELL" recommendations often because they are afraid they might ruin their chances of getting a company's underwriting business, or even the underwriting business of other companies if they are too negative. So analysts are often forced to shy on the side of optimism, however, this doesn't mean they're all corrupt.

Some analysts do a good job of analysing companies and have a consistent track record for doing so. The Wall Street Journal regularly highlights analysts who have preformed best in the past year. This survey usually appears in the beginning of each new year.

Saying all analysts are evil is tanatmount to claiming that all fund managers are poor performers, or all company CEO's are crooked, etc...
There are always exceptions, and you get to know who those exceptions are by observing and checking their record.



Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: WayneOwl Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 51 of 69
Subject: Re: Top 20% Date: 1/24/2004 3:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
jammerh ....

I'm surprised you get so nit-picky over a little quote from a couple years ago from someone other than Mauldin himself. Mauldin's statements were about "averages" and you seem to agree with those.

I think starting a new thread would have been more appropriate if you wanted to "bash Drehman".

fwiw,
Wayne

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jammerh Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 52 of 69
Subject: Re: Top 20% Date: 1/25/2004 2:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Wayne, to the contrary, there is a lot about Drehman that I like.

It should be obvious that if someone takes the time to address an issue that they're concerned about it.

I won't apologise for not letting the myth that 'all analysts are evil', slide past.

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (4) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement