That study that Kiplenger covered was pretty well done and considered relevant enough to conduct and publish. Throw out whatever information you want but that's no way to learn. You're taking a simplistic look at things. ...
On a more serious note, I took a more detailed look at the study. I really can't agree that is was 'well done' or has much meaning at all. It was a general look at the gurus market predictions, with all sorts of if/ands/buts in their methodology. The most important, IMO:
Some forecasts may be more important than others, but all are comparably weighted. In other words, measuring forecast accuracy is unlike measuring portfolio returns.
Well, results is really the only measurement that matters. It's even more important than the excuses/trade ratio!
That's undefined for nunnun - zero excuses divided by zero trades?
So the guru makes a bear/bull forecast, with some vague time frame and %. But what did they
do? When did they buy/sell, or sell/buy, or sit it out? You can get a general forecast right, but get in/out at sub-optimal times.
Simple example, for a guru who is only right 25% of the time:
Declares a bear 3 times, takes no action, and the markets drops, and then returns. Declares a bull one time, leverages it, and gets out at a good enough time to beat the market by a large margin. His 25% accuracy was poor by that measure, his results were great.
And Boho's results are poor, even with an 89% "got out of the trade at a profit" measure. And how many of those were out at a market-beating profit? And how many losers are held right now? Without that, and weighting, it is meaningless. Results take all this into account, with no fudge, no fog.
-ERD50
