It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
@Hank, heavens no. You are as honest as the day is long. One of the most valued members here from long ago. It’s the posters who have masterfully crafted a make believe trading/investment background/ persona with all sorts of bells and whistles to gain attention. I have pretty much gotten off Facebook too. A bit different reason but tired of seeing the irrelevant go to such lengths to become relevant. That obviously applies to only a select few as I do understand the value/appeal of FB. Let’s just say I am more than a bit old fashioned and a bit of a Luddite and not a social media fan. Please take me back to the 80s. Better yet the 50s. If it weren’t for the fact of having a long time lady friend here in Mayberry, I would be living off the grid somewhere in the mountains.”Too many George Santos impersonators have infiltrated some of these forums.”
Hi Gary. I don’t know whether your reference was to me or not. But inasmuch as I’d earlier alluded to some profitable personal investments and inasmuch as others might construe your remark in that way I’ve edited my original post, deleting all references to my own investments or personally favored assets / asset classes. I also deleted references to investment newsletters I may subscribe to.
The question of poster integrity is a critical one that surely affectsmfo and similar forums. You are right to raise the issue. Short of submitting to board sponsors authentic documentation to substantiate investor claims (which I know you to have done on at least one occasion) there is no way for readers to know for certain whether poster claims of success are truthful - or even if they’ve owned the funds / assets they claim to. I should add here that I have been most impressed with the caliber of the posters on this forum and do not get the sense, as you appear to, that there are a significant number of “George Soros” posts occurring - at least on regular basis. But I could be wrong.
One here whom I greatly respect, Mark Freeland (@msf), has always astutely avoided identifying or acknowledging any stocks or funds he may own. I can’t speak for Mark, but the reasons he has stated in the past made good sense to me. I will follow in his footsteps and refrain in the future from identifying any funds, stocks or other assets I may own or may have owned in the past. I will also avoid mention of asset classes I may favor or invest in. At first blush I considered going back and similarity editing all such past references made in other threads. But doing so would be grossly unfair to those who responded / participated in the threads with their own thoughtful or helpful remarks.
Thanks for responding to my post. Enjoy the long hike.
Exxon Mobil’s scientists were remarkably accurate in their predictions about global warming, even as the company made public statements that contradicted its own scientists’ conclusions, a new study says.
The study in the journal Science Thursday looked at research that Exxon funded that didn’t just confirm what climate scientists were saying, but used more than a dozen different computer models that forecast the coming warming with precision equal to or better than government and academic scientists.
This was during the same time that the oil giant publicly doubted that warming was real and dismissed climate models’ accuracy. Exxon said its understanding of climate change evolved over the years and that critics are misunderstanding its earlier research.
Scientists, governments, activists and news sites, including Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times, several years ago reported that “Exxon knew” about the science of climate change since about 1977 all while publicly casting doubt. What the new study does is detail how accurate Exxon funded research was. From 63% to 83% of those projections fit strict standards for accuracy and generally predicted correctly that the globe would warm about .36 degrees (.2 degrees Celsius) a decade.
The Exxon-funded science was “actually astonishing” in its precision and accuracy, said study co-author Naomi Oreskes, a Harvard science history professor. But she added so was the “hypocrisy because so much of the Exxon Mobil disinformation for so many years ... was the claim that climate models weren’t reliable.”
Study lead author Geoffrey Supran, who started the work at Harvard and now is a environmental science professor at the University of Miami, said this is different than what was previously found in documents about the oil company.
“We’ve dug into not just to the language, the rhetoric in these documents, but also the data. And I’d say in that sense, our analysis really seals the deal on ‘Exxon knew’,” Supran said. It “gives us airtight evidence that Exxon Mobil accurately predicted global warming years before, then turned around and attacked the science underlying it.”
And from Carson Research if you add if the previous year was down - as was 2022 - to the above equation ( nine occurrences) you have an average 27.1% annual return the following yearJeffrey Hirsch (son of late Yale Hirsch; founder of Stock Trader's Almanac) posted a table at Twitter LINK with data from 1950 on:
SC Rally (late-Dec Santa Claus rally)
FFD (first 5 days of the year)
JB (Jan barometer)
Subsequent
Feb
Last 11 Mo (Feb-Dec)
Full Year (Jan-Dec)
Instead of a single pointer, when all 3 are positive (SC Rally, FFD, JB), the year is good.
Your VG MMKT are in line with Fidelity MMKT's. SPAXX (3.9%)and FDRXX (3.93%) are standard MMKT core accounts with yield about 3.88%. While an additional MMKT we use, FZDXX is at 4.27%.but our VG money market funds seem just as competitive at the moment (am I missing something here?).
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved. Powered by Vanilla
