Easy Strategy to Beat The Market?

[mslk 10]

ok now that i have your attention ... before i start i am not endorsing this newsletter, don't work for them, i won't even tell you who it is!

 

but look at this graph of their performance ... couldn't someone do something as simple as invest $500 in each of their picks and completely crush the market?

 

 

thanks

-mslk

[Do Or Die 10]

That chart does not says anything at all.

 

Could have mentioned a word about their philosophy/approach, makes better sense.

[JEHs 10]

ok now that i have your attention ... before i start i am not endorsing this newsletter, don't work for them, i won't even tell you who it is!

 

but look at this graph of their performance ... couldn't someone do something as simple as invest $500 in each of their picks and completely crush the market?

 

[ATTACH]25048[/ATTACH]

 

thanks

-mslk

 

I'd say definitely. Go for it. let us know how it works out.

[mslk 10]

That chart does not says anything at all.

Could have mentioned a word about their philosophy/approach, makes better sense.

 

well the whole point is to let them do the research, and to just follow their recs. based on the chart, after the losers cancel out some of the winners they are way way ahead. you don't think thats a feasible strategy, if they have a good, verifiable track-record?

 

- mslk

[Do Or Die 10]

you don't think thats a feasible strategy, if they have a good, verifiable track-record?

 

- mslk

 

Sounds awesome. Can you give some data on their performance please. I'll do the maths for their performance. You may like to check the wikipedia entry on ratios for performance measurement Sharpe ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[mslk 10]

Sounds awesome. Can you give some data on their performance please. I'll do the maths for their performance. You may like to check the wikipedia entry on ratios for performance measurement Sharpe ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

hi - i don't have the actual data, i just have the chart i posted. but looking at the chart, if you take the 27 losers and cancel out the first 27 winners (not exact but close enough for discussion), that leaves 28 big winners right?

- mslk

[Do Or Die 10]

See... a lot can be hidden behind the chart.

 

From the % returns for investments I can say that they are doing high beta trades, and not high alpha trades. I can show that if they are willing to provide proper trade data. Moreover, how do you verify that they are actually executing those trades (and not making them up).

[TheNegotiator 13]

I don't think it really tells you anything. It could be a certain strategy out of hundreds which they cherry picked as doing well during that period. People have ambiguous descriptions of their strategies they are selling generally are for a reason. If it is so profitable, what's the need to sell it?

[SIUYA 11]

but look at this graph of their performance ... couldn't someone do something as simple as invest $500 in each of their picks and completely crush the market?

 

[ATTACH]25048[/ATTACH]

 

thanks

-mslk

 

yes - but past performance is no guarantee of future performance.

[mslk 10]

I don't think it really tells you anything. It could be a certain strategy out of hundreds which they cherry picked as doing well during that period. People have ambiguous descriptions of their strategies they are selling generally are for a reason. If it is so profitable, what's the need to sell it?

 

there is a huge industry of people selling newsletters, investment advice, stock picks. some of their picks are good and some are bad. you can't generalize and say if someone has a winning strategy they wouldn't sell it. if that was the case you wouldn't have hedge funds or trading firms. but back to this particular newsletter, the graph shows all of their picks for the last year - now assuming this data is correct wouldn't my original simple strategy of work?

 

thanks

-mslk

[SIUYA 11]

t...... you can't generalize and say if someone has a winning strategy they wouldn't sell it. if that was the case you wouldn't have hedge funds or trading firms.

-mslk

 

there are plenty of winning strategies around, its the application of them that gets sold by hedge funds and trading firms.

......hedge funds make their money via leverage - leverage of using other peoples money and applying a strategy....sometimes this strategy works sometimes it does not.

....trading firms get their leverage using other people (ie; many traders bums on seats) and either applying a lot of strategies, or the same strategy over many markets.

 

If they sat on their own and applied the same strategy then their returns on a small amount of money does not compare to trading and leveraging up either other peoples money or other traders.

 

both really only get paid and make big money via performance.

Newsletters, brokers and sellers of strategies only make their money via recommendations and not the application of them.....

 

and there is a massive massive MASSIVE difference between having a strategy that even though it may be successful, and running that strategy as a business.