Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
Still believe in efficient markets? Explain this...
Love it. The only issue now is the length of your post. Suggest you pad it out to two or three pages and throw in a whole lot of big words and many scholarly footnotes and references if you want to give MJG a run for the title.
@old_Joe, you seem a bit obsessed with MJG. I understand there is some past history with baggage here. Do you really want ANY anonymous poster on an internet board to affect you that much? Only half joking.
Someone slaps you, you slap them back and then both go have a beer. Essence of male bonding through ages. People who can't deal with that honestly, you just ignore and move on. Works for me.
Regarding EMH, it is a testament to how bad use of scientific method is in Economics.
I see this "hypothesis" (it is not defined well enough to call it a hypothesis in science terminology) and its main thesis that you can't beat the market (rather than that prices are accurate), in the same vein as the common idiom "Crime doesn't pay". The latter, as an absolute statement, is neither completely true nor is it completely false.
The religious battles and interpretations seem to come from how extremely one defines "efficiency".
If you define "crime" strictly as an act where you are caught and convicted, then the statement is almost a truism. If you define crime loosely as anything that breaks an existing laws including traffic laws, the statement becomes divorced from reality.
cman: Yeah, you're actually right. It's just that in 75 years I've had my share of pretentiousness already, and have little remaining tolerance for it at this point. It's really got less to do with differences of opinion than with the preening attitude... he rarely admits to the possibility of an equally valid counter-view, and if he does, it's usually in a subtly deprecating manner.
You were motivated to spend quite a bit of energy taking that post apart line by line... he might have irritated you a bit also. And you did notice no response, right? BTW, your post may just be the record-holder for the longest ever on either MFO or FundAlarm!
Again, though, your suggestion is well taken- probably better to just ignore him and go have a beer.
This must be the clearest, most devastating argument against Efficient Market Theory in existence. Appear on TV a lot and get called 'The Bond King' by the Talking Heads and see what happens.
Indeed there is a history between Old Joe and myself. But it is not my doing. It has been a one-way street. Old Joe attacks; I defend.
I post and on some occasions Old Joe is critical. Old Joe posts and I am never critical; I am consistently silent. I only respond when Old Joe initiates a criticism.
It is significant to note the nature of that criticism. Old Joe challenges my writing style; he loathes my choice of vocabulary; he detests the overall length of my submittals; he thinks my references are too wonkish; he disputes my opening salutation.
Yes, I said he is even offended by my opening greeting. Old Joe believes that it is sexist in character, and was purposely designed to exclude a female audience. He made that ludicrous charge in the early FundAlarm glory days. I was so shocked by the claim that I immediately and forcefully replied. What would you do? That started our war of words. I patiently ask: Who anointed Old Joe captain of the postings police?
Every so often, I test my writing style by visiting the “Fog Index” website to measure its complexity. I just now did so for my post that cman challenged in detail. The Gunning Fog Index awarded my posting a 12.15 score. That’s equivalent to a slightly above senior High School first-read understanding level. That’s surely not pretentious writing.
What a waste of time and talent. Both Old Joe and I have precious little of it remaining and we should husband it dearly. I do.
I have more or less immunized myself from his outlandish charges by simply recognizing that the charges do not address investment issues of substance. They center on fringe non-financial elements. But they still demand a response; that’s another shameful time sink.
I respect and honor differing investment interpretations and opinions. That’s a primary purpose of most MFO postings. Honest debate helps crystallize thinking and focus decision making. Again, for the record, I have been influenced by many MFO postings and have acknowledged them. Yet another scurrilous, nonsense charge that must be redressed.
My investment policies and philosophies are orthodox and mainstream in character. I am amazed at the bitterness that my harmless and well-intentioned posts excite. Admittedly, I do advocate academic studies. Their work, starting in the early 1960s, helped pull the investment art out of the deep quagmire of undisciplined folklore, and gave it some empirical organizational structure. I’m particularly talking about Bill Sharpe’s contributions here.
With some exceptions, I am satisfied with my postings and proudly stand tall on the shoulders of those financial giants who inspire me. Investing wisdom is not a done deal and is constantly evolving. I gladly welcome differing assessments and will profit from them. But not now. That is NOT the theme of this submittal.
Thank you all for your valuable time. I hold no grudges, especially as my memory fades with age Thank you guys for the opportunity to balance the books.
Are we coming to a point in time where investing styles should be a topic never brought up at the dinner table? (Religion and politics are the current topics)
Back to the topic at hand, I am not a fan of Micheal Gayed and his PensionPartners site. His history at Marketwatch tells the story. Promoting his products under the guise of a investing article and then censoring anyone who disagreed with his views or brought up the apparent conflict of interest.
Apologies. Didn't mean to stir up old wounds and baggage.
I think it is much more interesting to discuss why @Mark covets @Old_Joe's toilet.
@MJG, if you would like to get constructive feedback without history/baggage on why your posts (including the one above) might rub SOME people the wrong way, or give rise to an unflattering opinion of you, let me know and I will send you a private message. Only if you think it might help and/or curious.
Some of the premium in PHK can be explained by stock loan fees. PHK is hard to borrow, and institutional investors and some accredited investors can earn an extra 7% a year by lending their PHK shares to short sellers.
cman: No, no! Mark wants my weekend hammock up at the place on the Russian River.
Mark: THOU SHALL NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S HAMMOCK!
and finally- MJG: I won't dispute your observations above, but I will point out that there have been quite a few times when I have agreed with your point of view, have said so, and even thanked you for either starting or adding to a stimulating discussion. You might be honest enough to concede that point.
John: to be honest, I was not aware of Micheal Gayed or his PensionPartners site until this post. Because of that I'll defer to your judgement regarding the site in general, but I would appreciate your opinion of that one specific article. Do you think that it's valid?
I read the article. I wonder how many holders of that fund picked it based on past performance? It is a closed end fund and I tend to stay away from those. Does the industry take advantage if these people? Sure they do. So do used car salesmen,lawyers and a few other professions. I have always had a conflicting view regarding Pimco. Their commentarys were excellent and Bill Gross rose the wave of the biggest bond bull market. Now we know the real story and Pimco is suffering because of it.
So I would say the article has validity. Caveat Emptor rules the day.
I really enjoy the board too and hope both Old Joe & MJG continue to contribute mightily. Have learned a lot from both of them. Hmm ... as far as personal attacks, as long as they are in good humor, as in this thread, they don't much upset me. I did think some of Ted's earlier unfair attacks on one member were "over the top" but, to his credit, that stopped long ago. (Added: I too have sometimes stepped over the acceptable line at times. Apologies to any so offended.)
As pretty much a stick-in-the-mud "buy and hold" investor (without a lot to do), I welcome some of the occasional off topic excursions here, but understand why they perhaps upset those of a more serious vein. And, for me, the knowledge of the human psyche I glean here is at least as valuable as the financial wisdom imparted.
I don't do any other boards. (Oh - I might visit a home repair forum occasionally to make sure don't electrocute myself fixing a lamp:-). But, seriously, there's a nice mix of intellect, knowledge and a general sense of fair-play here that I haven't found anywhere else on the web - if it exists.
Note to MJG: It's obvious Old Joe doesn't appreciate or understand your higher level of precision and eloquence. If interested in modifying your level of discourse to meet his standards, I suggest loading up with a stack of old VHS tapes, consisting one-third each of: "Dukes of Hazard", "Hee-Haw" and "The Beverly Hillbillies". Enjoy over a 48 hour weekend along with a case of your favorite beer (straight from the can*). Should help.
* For best results, fling empty cans about the house.
With some exceptions, I am satisfied with my postings (1), and while I have more or less immunized myself from your outlandish charges (2), I'll have you know that I have never watched even one episode of the series which you have referenced. Yet another scurrilous, nonsense charge that must be redressed (3) notwithstanding the fact that’s another shameful time sink. (4)
I patiently ask (5) that In the future you please supply documentation, footnotes and references before making such ludicrous (6) charges.
Now, Get Smart... Monty Python... Sergeant Bilko... Pogo Possum... that's a whole different kettle of fish. I proudly stand tall on the shoulders (7) of those intellectual giants who inspire me. (7a)
Best Wishes. OJ
Late Edit: In a totally shameful and inexcusable oversight, "The Simpsons" was inadvertently omitted from the above list of intellectual giants. My sincere apologies to Matt Groening.
Hi Guys, Every so often, I test my writing style by visiting the “Fog Index” website to measure its complexity. I just now did so for my post that cman challenged in detail. The Gunning Fog Index awarded my posting a 12.15 score. That’s equivalent to a slightly above senior High School first-read understanding level. That’s surely not pretentious writing.
Does the "Fog Index" capture tone, or merely vocabulary (syllables) and complexity of linguistic structure?
I can't wait to wake up and tell you guys about this and that other thread. How about a post in "Off Topic" at about market opening tomorrow. Much coffee on the keyboard will be had by all!
Does the "Fog Index" capture tone, or merely vocabulary (syllables) and complexity of linguistic structure?
Given evidence right here how difficult it is to detect tone, rhetorical devices and intent even by humans within the words, the availability of such a tool may be several generations in the future.
Though to be fair, @mjg was only responding to the accusation of extreme wordsmithing to point that tool out.
Comments
Someone slaps you, you slap them back and then both go have a beer. Essence of male bonding through ages. People who can't deal with that honestly, you just ignore and move on. Works for me.
Regarding EMH, it is a testament to how bad use of scientific method is in Economics.
I see this "hypothesis" (it is not defined well enough to call it a hypothesis in science terminology) and its main thesis that you can't beat the market (rather than that prices are accurate), in the same vein as the common idiom "Crime doesn't pay". The latter, as an absolute statement, is neither completely true nor is it completely false.
The religious battles and interpretations seem to come from how extremely one defines "efficiency".
If you define "crime" strictly as an act where you are caught and convicted, then the statement is almost a truism. If you define crime loosely as anything that breaks an existing laws including traffic laws, the statement becomes divorced from reality.
cman: Yeah, you're actually right. It's just that in 75 years I've had my share of pretentiousness already, and have little remaining tolerance for it at this point. It's really got less to do with differences of opinion than with the preening attitude... he rarely admits to the possibility of an equally valid counter-view, and if he does, it's usually in a subtly deprecating manner.
You were motivated to spend quite a bit of energy taking that post apart line by line... he might have irritated you a bit also. And you did notice no response, right? BTW, your post may just be the record-holder for the longest ever on either MFO or FundAlarm!
Again, though, your suggestion is well taken- probably better to just ignore him and go have a beer.
Indeed there is a history between Old Joe and myself. But it is not my doing. It has been a one-way street. Old Joe attacks; I defend.
I post and on some occasions Old Joe is critical. Old Joe posts and I am never critical; I am consistently silent. I only respond when Old Joe initiates a criticism.
It is significant to note the nature of that criticism. Old Joe challenges my writing style; he loathes my choice of vocabulary; he detests the overall length of my submittals; he thinks my references are too wonkish; he disputes my opening salutation.
Yes, I said he is even offended by my opening greeting. Old Joe believes that it is sexist in character, and was purposely designed to exclude a female audience. He made that ludicrous charge in the early FundAlarm glory days. I was so shocked by the claim that I immediately and forcefully replied. What would you do? That started our war of words. I patiently ask: Who anointed Old Joe captain of the postings police?
Every so often, I test my writing style by visiting the “Fog Index” website to measure its complexity. I just now did so for my post that cman challenged in detail. The Gunning Fog Index awarded my posting a 12.15 score. That’s equivalent to a slightly above senior High School first-read understanding level. That’s surely not pretentious writing.
What a waste of time and talent. Both Old Joe and I have precious little of it remaining and we should husband it dearly. I do.
I have more or less immunized myself from his outlandish charges by simply recognizing that the charges do not address investment issues of substance. They center on fringe non-financial elements. But they still demand a response; that’s another shameful time sink.
I respect and honor differing investment interpretations and opinions. That’s a primary purpose of most MFO postings. Honest debate helps crystallize thinking and focus decision making. Again, for the record, I have been influenced by many MFO postings and have acknowledged them. Yet another scurrilous, nonsense charge that must be redressed.
My investment policies and philosophies are orthodox and mainstream in character. I am amazed at the bitterness that my harmless and well-intentioned posts excite. Admittedly, I do advocate academic studies. Their work, starting in the early 1960s, helped pull the investment art out of the deep quagmire of undisciplined folklore, and gave it some empirical organizational structure. I’m particularly talking about Bill Sharpe’s contributions here.
With some exceptions, I am satisfied with my postings and proudly stand tall on the shoulders of those financial giants who inspire me. Investing wisdom is not a done deal and is constantly evolving. I gladly welcome differing assessments and will profit from them. But not now. That is NOT the theme of this submittal.
Thank you all for your valuable time. I hold no grudges, especially as my memory fades with age Thank you guys for the opportunity to balance the books.
It’s now time for that Cold One.
Best Wishes.
Back to the topic at hand, I am not a fan of Micheal Gayed and his PensionPartners site. His history at Marketwatch tells the story. Promoting his products under the guise of a investing article and then censoring anyone who disagreed with his views or brought up the apparent conflict of interest.
Carry on.
I think it is much more interesting to discuss why @Mark covets @Old_Joe's toilet.
@MJG, if you would like to get constructive feedback without history/baggage on why your posts (including the one above) might rub SOME people the wrong way, or give rise to an unflattering opinion of you, let me know and I will send you a private message. Only if you think it might help and/or curious.
Mark: THOU SHALL NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S HAMMOCK!
and finally- MJG: I won't dispute your observations above, but I will point out that there have been quite a few times when I have agreed with your point of view, have said so, and even thanked you for either starting or adding to a stimulating discussion. You might be honest enough to concede that point.
I read the article. I wonder how many holders of that fund picked it based on past performance? It is a closed end fund and I tend to stay away from those. Does the industry take advantage if these people? Sure they do. So do used car salesmen,lawyers and a few other professions. I have always had a conflicting view regarding Pimco. Their commentarys were excellent and Bill Gross rose the wave of the biggest bond bull market. Now we know the real story and Pimco is suffering because of it.
So I would say the article has validity. Caveat Emptor rules the day.
Take care. OJ
As pretty much a stick-in-the-mud "buy and hold" investor (without a lot to do), I welcome some of the occasional off topic excursions here, but understand why they perhaps upset those of a more serious vein. And, for me, the knowledge of the human psyche I glean here is at least as valuable as the financial wisdom imparted.
I don't do any other boards. (Oh - I might visit a home repair forum occasionally to make sure don't electrocute myself fixing a lamp:-). But, seriously, there's a nice mix of intellect, knowledge and a general sense of fair-play here that I haven't found anywhere else on the web - if it exists.
Carry on!
* For best results, fling empty cans about the house.
With some exceptions, I am satisfied with my postings (1), and while I have more or less immunized myself from your outlandish charges (2), I'll have you know that I have never watched even one episode of the series which you have referenced. Yet another scurrilous, nonsense charge that must be redressed (3) notwithstanding the fact that’s another shameful time sink. (4)
I patiently ask (5) that In the future you please supply documentation, footnotes and references before making such ludicrous (6) charges.
Now, Get Smart... Monty Python... Sergeant Bilko... Pogo Possum... that's a whole different kettle of fish. I proudly stand tall on the shoulders (7) of those intellectual giants who inspire me. (7a)
Best Wishes. OJ
Late Edit: In a totally shameful and inexcusable oversight, "The Simpsons" was inadvertently omitted from the above list of intellectual giants. My sincere apologies to Matt Groening.
(1) MJG, Paragraph 10, April 24, 2014: MFO, "Still believe in efficient markets? Explain this..."
(2) Ibid, Paragraph 7
(3) Ibid, Paragraph 8
(4) Ibid, Paragraph 7
(5) Ibid, Paragraph 4
(6) Ibid
(7) Ibid, Paragraph 10
(7a) Ibid
Note: the above citations are a slimy and transparent attempt to evade the scurrilous charge of plagiarism.
Anna through a gagging glass
Simple Measure of Gobbledygook.
At least we'll have fun in detention.
Given evidence right here how difficult it is to detect tone, rhetorical devices and intent even by humans within the words, the availability of such a tool may be several generations in the future.
Though to be fair, @mjg was only responding to the accusation of extreme wordsmithing to point that tool out.