Jurgis

I think your last conclusion is closest to the truth. I highlighted the key sentence above. I am waiting for Elon Musk'y integration of humans and cloud-AI, where I could run a comprehensive analysis of any claim, e.g. "aspirin reduces heart attacks while having no negative side effects", with all publicly-available data within couple minutes and have a reasoned statistical analysis (which I can still agree or disagree with). Then we might actually have a real current-fact-and-theory-level understanding and explanation of the world and any claims we hear. Yeah, this will still have drawbacks (e.g. you might not have facts, the past studies might be crappy, etc.), but it will move towards data-based claims/understanding. Some of responses you get in your experiment might just be politeness though. I might say something positive to a person who claims that "salt purges your organism from mercury" while thinking that he's total moron. 8)

Yeah, I like his writing and most of his buys.

Anybody has opinions about his income fund? Looks like a lot of risky bonds... but is he good in investing into them? I guess I should look at past reports on why the fund went down in 2014-2015. Probably energy bonds?..

Like the one that states: Emphasis mine. ::)

I agree with most of what oddballstocks said. Yes, there are issues with scientific studies. There are issues with reproducibility. There are issues with publish-or-perish. There are issues with incentives. On the other hand, most of these issues are not as bad, as pervasive or as broken as anti-science critics imply. Even in the medical field, look at the cancer treating advances in last 30 years or so. Look at HIV treating advances. Look at Hep C treatment. Yeah, there are crappy studies and marginal or not effective cancer drugs approved (and then possibly withdrawn). But that overall does not negate the huge life extension provided by treatments in last 30 years or so. Even with all the influence of pharma companies, there are people looking at study results, doing meta studies and pushing better analysis and better future studies. The whole reproducibility issue makes people (at least some people) construct more reproducible studies. Criticism of placebo-level-only results makes people make better placebo-controlled studies. On the third hand, how many of the people who criticize the studies have tried to make a large, placebo-controlled, double-blind, long-term medical study. These are horrendously difficult. That does not excuse all the simplifications, but the simplifications are not just because researchers are lazy, ignorant, on-the-pharma-payroll, etc. (E.g. because of ethics, you can't have control group on placebo if there are drugs that somewhat-perhaps-work and control group may die because you did not give them these drugs... ) On the fourth hand, and I mentioned this in another thread: a lot of devil is in the domain-specific details. So reading a popular-oriented articles about issues in field X is like watching a movie: some things are real, some things are way oversimplified, some things are distorted, some things are flat wrong. The problem I have with OP's article is that it is completely one sided. LC claims it's "well-sourced". But really it presents one side only and gives zero opportunity for the science side to answer any of the issues raised. Edit: I posted this before reading Liberty's reply. Liberty's pointers to other articles on that site completely shoots whatever credibility it had before. Yeah, I was right: it's a site for anti-science kooks.

I've decided to cut my position and wait for a better entry point. Yeah, it's not cheap.

So much one sided anti-science information. Lots of local anti-science kooks will be deliriously happy.

Right. And because of what frommi posted, markets may be somewhat efficient, i.e. it's hard to outperform by picking any horse - good or bad - without extra insight. Obviously there are exceptions as some people on this board and elsewhere demonstrate.

This is complete nonsense. Excusing Trump's election by "PC drove people to the edge" is utter bull crap. At least if you said that white male entitlement drove people to vote for Trump, you might be a bit closer to truth. We should not excuse misogyny, racism, homophobia, nationalism because their restriction supposedly drove someone to the edge. This is what the alt right racists want us to do. We won't surrender. We will not go back to the time when it was OK to denigrate people based on their gender, race, skin color or nationality. And BTW this forum is becoming a swamp of alt right demagogues because of no moderation.

What you are saying is that alpha is zero sum game (in closed system). This is true. What do you mean by "closed system" by the way? "Closed system" means that we are only measuring effects within the system itself, there are no leakages outside, and/or they are not included in the measurement. E.g. if you allowed for investors to hold non-index securities and/or cash and measured outperformance including these, then the zero sum game does not apply. Or more precisely it only applies once you make the index that includes these formerly-non-index-securities-cash/etc.

You da man, writser. 8)

What you are saying is that alpha is zero sum game (in closed system). This is true. However, this in no way relates to the claim that "on a dollar weighted basis half of investors have to outperform an index." Not sure if you wanted to relate to that claim or not. 8) Maybe the claim "on a dollar weighted basis half of investors have to outperform an index." was supposed to express that alpha is zero sum game. Maybe it was supposed to say: "in dollars outperformers outperform by the same sum as the underperformers underperform". But that's not what it said. 8) Here's the quote from the Sharpe paper that proved it: "Over any specified time period, the market return will be a weighted average of the returns on the securities within the market, using beginning market values as weights. Each passive manager will obtain precisely the market return, before costs. From this, it follows (as the night from the day) that the return on the average actively managed dollar must equal the market return. Why? Because the market return must equal a weighted average of the returns on the passive and active segments of the market. If the first two returns are the same, the third must be also." Tbh I haven't completely wrapped my head around it, but i'm not sure i'd go around disagreeing with Sharpe and Mauboussin, who are both miles smarter than I am. I think my single transaction example works pretty well for me. If that's replicated for each transaction then on a dollar weighted basis (as the night from the day) half would outperform and half would underperform before fees I don't think we are disagreeing at all.

I'm not associated with this. Just came through my infoporn feed and I thought it was fun interesting opportunity: Columbia University Post-Doctoral Research Scientist, Machine Learning in Wealth Management http://jobs.acm.org/jobseeker/job/32715897/?utm_source=JobFlash&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=JobPosting&utm_campaign=JobFlash-3%2B01%2C%2B2017 "There is also an opportunity to be involved in a start-up company arising from the research of the Center." 8)

There were accusations in Barron's last year too. FWIW. No comment on content.

Interesting that this topic appears on the day Youtube TV is announced ( https://www.cnet.com/products/youtube-tv/preview/ ) and first four posts does not even reference it. 8) My take - as a coattaily Liberty empire investor - is that there's way too much content being produced. So although I hold DISCA and LGFB, I really should shit more to the cable cos (LBRDA, LBTYA, LILA). Actually that's my weighting already.

Yeah, it's an old joke. Heard it 20 years ago or so and likely it was an old joke even then. It was more culturally-OK then perhaps. Sometimes Buffett is just not very sensitive when he tells his jokes. ::)

Yeah, I understand what you are saying. 8) Good luck.

Thanks for recap.

What you are saying is that alpha is zero sum game (in closed system). This is true. However, this in no way relates to the claim that "on a dollar weighted basis half of investors have to outperform an index." Not sure if you wanted to relate to that claim or not. 8) Maybe the claim "on a dollar weighted basis half of investors have to outperform an index." was supposed to express that alpha is zero sum game. Maybe it was supposed to say: "in dollars outperformers outperform by the same sum as the underperformers underperform". But that's not what it said. 8)

What about EXPE/LEXEA vs PCLN? Is PCLN just best in show?

Mhm. :) Although topofeaturellc is trying to make this more complicated by talking about investors holding the shares. Still what you said is true and is perhaps better example/explanation than mine was.

So a mathematical construct that you proposed and that does not work for n==2 somehow magically starts to work for n=500? Really? I could construct an example with 500 stocks and real world, but it's a waste of my time if you don't understand math. Have fun.

Not true. Let's say index is two stocks: C1 10 shares at $10 C2 10 shares at $10 and we have two investors: I1 holding 10 shares in C1 and 9 shares in C2 I2 holding 1 share in C2 C2 goes to $20 (nobody's selling, nobody's buying and the bid/ask just goes there OR we can have a bunch of trades where I1/I2 are trading and run up the price to $20 - just have to be careful to set this correctly). I2 outperforms the index. I1 underperforms. On dollar weighted basis I2 is < 1/10 of the index and he's the only one outperforming. BTW if you say just "half investors outperform", that's wrong too.

The following is going to be controversial. Don't read if you have dreams of working as value investor. You've been warned. 8) For young people who are thinking of becoming great investors (value or whatever other approach), I would say that this is a crappy life plan. Couple reasons for that. First, very very very few people outperform. Most people on CoBF don't outperform. Most of 0.1% of 1% don't outperform. Sure you can gather fees without outperforming, but if that's your life plan, then just call the spade a spade and call yourself a good salesperson or a good financial advisor (yeah, the kind who is part trusted financial person, part psychologist, part priest). Don't call yourself great investor. Nothing bad in being good financial advisor. They are rare breed IMO and definitely needed. (Fee gathering salespeople... CPA's them...) Second, even if you're one of the people who will outperform, IMO the outperformance will become harder and harder going forward. There's maybe 10-15 more years of viability. After that - if we get superhuman AI - and we will - kiss this good bye. Maybe even way before superhuman general AI. Want proof? Poker players can already say goodbye to their jobs ... Of course, AI won't be allowed into poker tournaments - they are for genuine humans only - but in the market nobody knows you're a dog AI. Third, even if you're one of the people who will outperform, most likely you also have IQ and capacity to do great things in other areas. Choose something productive rather than moving money from point A to point B and earning fees and/or cap gains. Go into computer science, biotech, robotics, space, boring company :P, energy, etc. More on the entrepreneurial side? Go start a company. Build something. You'll make tons of money in it too. And you'll probably make a world better place. Way more contribution than just investing. (Yeah, I know Buffett's 90%+ donation is also making world better place. You gonna sign a pledge to follow his footsteps?) And if you really want, you can still value invest on the side. 8) Not that the above will persuade anyone to change their path.

I have some QVCA. It's always been optically cheapest Malone company for the reasons you outlined. And it's getting cheaper still. I'm not sure about its future and I don't plan to buy more. Probably shoulda sold it, but...