Trickle down economics is a lie, the proof !

[Yamato 13,197]

I'd say the same thing about NBC's Jim Cramer and his "Cramer Effect" which I have observed many times in after-hours and pre-market trading after he shamelessly endorses a stock on TV. So it is real and it does give him an artificial buffer of accuracy for the volumes of information he spews daily. He loves popular stocks making 52-week highs and would like you to buy it there, but then when something bad happens and the stock takes a dump, he very wisely incorporates that bad thing into his analysis and changes his mind. So the home gamer can then receive a free haircut from Cramer's late and accurate advice.

I'd be interested to know what variables were accounted for in your regression analysis on behavior, WCF. They're supposed to be investing money and turning it into capital gains for their clients, right? What else would we study but returns on their investment? If they were managing an energy fund and investing in software companies instead, why would that be eliminated from the equation? Or why would behavior be eliminated from Behavior?

[White Crane Feather 5,745]

I'd say the same thing about NBC's Jim Cramer and his "Cramer Effect" which I have observed many times in after-hours and pre-market trading after he shamelessly endorses a stock on TV. So it is real and it does give him an artificial buffer of accuracy for the volumes of information he spews daily. He loves popular stocks making 52-week highs and would like you to buy it there, but then when something bad happens and the stock takes a dump, he very wisely incorporates that bad thing into his analysis and changes his mind. So the home gamer can then receive a free haircut from Cramer's late and accurate advice.

I'd be interested to know what variables were accounted for in your regression analysis on behavior, WCF. They're supposed to be investing money and turning it into capital gains for their clients, right? What else would we study but returns on their investment? If they were managing an energy fund and investing in software companies instead, why would that be eliminated from the equation? Or why would behavior be eliminated from Behavior?

It did not have anything to do with how well they did. It was a regression to see if they were going to do what they said they were going to do in various types of markets.

If you put your money in a particular type of fund, you expect your exposure to be in that particular category for good or ill. If your manager gets skittish in a bear market and moves the funds out of that exposure or if he thinks he is smart and sees better opportunities in another category and uses your money there, he is essentially gambling with your money because he thinks he knows better. Even if he does, it dosnt matter you chose that fund to give you exposure or protection from a particular area. It turns out when the market starts moving barely any of them stick to their guns and you do not have the exposure you think you do unless you do it yourself. A small cap emerging markets fund is rarely a small cap emerging markets fund in a bear market . Though hege funds are more flexible than mutual funds, they still should be sticking to the game plan that they say they are going to use. They rarely do.

If they were managing an energy fund and investing in software company's unrelated to energy, your portfolio would not be diversified to your design. Essentially what is supposed to be an energy fund is not. This is bad news when your personal investment plan calls fine some exposure to the energy markets but your manager is essentially lying to you. If you were already invested in software companies you now would have more exposure than you intended to.

We went very far back in many managers history's and discovered almost no one stuck to their prospectus when the markets jittery. Ultimately this makes the perspective useless and the fund managers essentially gamblers.

Edited July 12, 2014 by White Crane Feather

[President-Elect Acidhead 12,479]

20 Sep 2014Dr. Ron Paul, former congressman and three-time presidential candidate, gives Erin his take on why households in the top 20% have seen all of the gains in income so far, compared to the $275 annual decline for the lowest 20%. 

[President-Elect Acidhead 12,479]

Love that guy. He's the best Prez America never had.

[Gromdor 13,834]

I can understand the dollar being devalued as causing more people to be pushed into the lower class but it doesn't really explain how it is all pooling at the top.