 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! |
 Investorville
 Tomments and Tommentary
 Who are the best stock pickers? (Page 5)
|
| This topic is 9 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: Who are the best stock pickers? |
|
lockin |
posted 06-20-2000 01:49 PM
 
hecubus, I mostly agree with you. My position is that these conflicts of interest are currently ubiquitous and accountability is absent. However, as the internet increasingly forces accountability on these folks, some will feel pressure to avoid such conflicts of interest, and they will outperform, and they'll be worth listening to. For now, I will continue to ignore the whole lot of them, because reading between the lines is tiresome. |
|
KeithG |
posted 06-20-2000 01:40 PM
Checked out that street.com feature and it is quite impressive. Extremely large and it appears to be ongoing...but here's the sort of snippet you've been looking for: Honest Analysts-people that we willing to buck the trend and speak the truth in the face of their evil analyst brethren. |
|
hecubus |
posted 06-19-2000 06:12 PM
Well, lockin, I am not disagreeing with you about how deceptive this whole analyst game is, but I think that the fact that theStreet can write up a report like this one gives people a good reason to listen to what they say. All investors are looking for predictive power and if there is some measurement of who's right and who's wrong most of the time, I don't necessarily care WHY they are right or wrong. I think that is what this whole discussion is getting at--if people can figure out who to listen to and who not to, then these analysts have value. Whether it is because they are smarter than me, have more information than me, or that the masses will listen to whatever s/he says, as long as there is some consistent cause-->effect relationship, I can use it to my advantage. Just my take.
quote: |
|
InvestorGuide Daily Administrator |
posted 06-19-2000 06:00 PM
TheStreet.com presents an in-depth ranking of stock, industry, and market analysts. This ongoing feature will help investors determine who's worth listening to and who it is better to just ignore. (source: theStreet) http://www.thestreet.com/markets/analystrankings/962385.html |
|
lockin |
posted 06-19-2000 04:17 PM
An article on TheStreet today sums up the broblem with analysts: "Analysts have many masters, with diverging interests. Research must help the brokerage's sales force generate orders. It must also guide institutional clients (big mutual fund companies like Fidelity or Putnam). And, increasingly, analysts play a vital role in helping their firms drum up underwriting and mergers-and-acquisitions advisory business. The individual investor is decidedly lowest on the totem pole in the hearts -- and wallets -- of analysts because they deliver the fewest bucks to Wall Street firms." With such large conflicts of interest, it baffles me that anyone still listens to what these analysts say... hopefully everyone will come to their senses soon and stop paying attention to these puppets. |
|
KeithG |
posted 06-15-2000 02:40 PM
Hey, here's another site to keep your eyes on: http://www.insiderscores.com Right now, they are ranking insider traders (the legal ones) on their predictive ability (ie. when they sell, how often does the stock go down and by how much). there is a lot of information about insider trading and there is a clear explanation of how they get there measurements. But, the interesting part, is their homepage claims that soon they will be ranking analysts. So, it might be worth watching. And, in the meantime, you can get all sorts of interesting info about insider trading. |
|
dude |
posted 06-13-2000 06:32 PM
Which is worse, partial accountability or no accountability at all? Jim Jubak is fairly well known, mostly thanks to his prominent placement on MoneyCentral. And he tracks his own picks and reports how they're doing: http://moneycentral.msn.com/articles/invest/jubak/5473.asp But this is only what he's currently holding, along with what he's 'recently dropped'. That makes it too easy for him to hide mistakes, by taking them out of his portfolio... once they're no longer 'recently dropped', they're gone without a trace. As far as I can tell, he doesn't reveal his overall performance, nor does he keep detailed records of when he makes adjustments to his predictions (which he seemingly does pretty often). Perhaps one of these new 'rate the gurus' sites is keeping track of exactly how he's doing... |
|
hecubus |
posted 06-12-2000 05:43 PM
Another article on the dirty games analysts play... http://www.streetadvisor.com/Article/Article.asp?aid=3095 |
|
hecubus |
posted 06-05-2000 04:31 PM
Here is another article that is a month or so behind the discussion out here. However, if you are interested in what the future may bring from the SEC, its worth checking out. http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,15701,00.html |
|
terrific |
posted 06-02-2000 12:35 PM
Worth Magazine is hopping on the bandwagon and tracking a list of their editors' favorite picks. Here's the list: http://www.worth.com/articles/Z0006NW11.html Check back in a year or so and see how they did. |
|
scripter |
posted 05-25-2000 03:34 PM
Here's an article describing a couple funds that made rapid and large strategic changes, and didn't reveal those changes to shareholders until after the damage was done. This is exactly the type of situation that could be avoided with increased disclosure requirements. http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/funds/funds/947259.html |
|
corpgov unregistered |
posted 05-22-2000 10:28 AM
More important than posting their holdings more frequently would be requiring mutual funds to disclose their votes in corporate elections. James McRitchie, Editor http://www.corpgov.net |
|
dude |
posted 05-22-2000 09:13 AM
Motley Fool is developing a site similar to iExchange, where people make stock picks and the good ones get paid for them. The site is http://www.soapbox.com, but it hasn't officially launched. They're planning to keep 40% of the revenues rather than the 50% that iExchange keeps, but otherwise I think it's going to be very similar. |
|
netinvestor |
posted 05-19-2000 04:51 PM
I agree, interesting discussion here... Companies are realizing that their investors want to see where there money is going, even if its after the fact. Would it really hurt funds that much in the long run? Investors would have to do a lot of research to try to figure out the managers' strategy and then follow it. If instead they just copied whatever moves the manager made, but made them two weeks later or a month later or whatever, that would only serve to benefit the manager, not hurt them. |
|
lockin |
posted 05-19-2000 09:39 AM
I agree with Art - let the marketplace decide. One other observation... the funds that oppose increased disclosure argue that it would put them at a competitive disadvantage. But if all funds have the same requirement, how does it put them at a competitive advantage? It doesn't, until you realize that the competition that they're afraid of isn't other mutual funds, but individual investors who watch what the funds are doing, learn from them, invest directly and avoid the mutual fund's expenses. |
| This topic is 9 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 All times are EST (US) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
|
Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.43
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.
Press ctrl-D to bookmark this page for future reference.
By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use.
Copyright 2001 InvestorGuide.com Inc.