How Did I Do With CHN and GCH?

[David Sklansky]

About what I predicted I think.

[adios]

You made your recommendation on 7/19/04

GCH on 7/19/04

13.12

GCH currently trading at 15.25

A 16% gain in about 6 weeks.


CHN on 7/19/04

26.24

CHN currently trading at

29.26

About 11.5% in 6 weeks.

So approximately on an annualized basis

GCH 139% return

CHN 100% return



Time to sell? I would assume so.

And I was about ready to post how well the bond market has rallied in the past month or so. Given the fact that the stock market in general has been fairly weak and fears about slower growth in China, your call was obviously a great one. Thanks for the insight into a money making opportunity.

[David Sklansky]

It is not clear to me whether it is time to sell or not. I can think of reasons for both sides (only as regards to the effect of the Olympics mind you. I'm ignorant of the other factors.)

[GeorgeF]

China does seem to have 'popped' around the same time as the Athens Olympics. I think your idea was publicity about China getting the 08 games would run the stocks up. I am not sure what the original start date you were using was. Over 6 months the gains were not tremendous and inline with bonds. You don't get the stock picker of the year award unless you blow away bond ETFs. On the other hand if the idea was to buy China at the start of the Athens games and sell on closing of the games, you seem to have been very right.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=CHN&t=3m&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=gch,tlt,tip

[ericd]

Timing the market is one of the most difficult, and therefore most risky, ways to invest. You won this time. Be careful.

[Senor Choppy]

Watching the olympics I saw very little mention of China hosting the games.

Celebrating after a 2 week move in the stock price of around 15% reminds me of people posting their win rates after moving up in limits for a few thousand hands.

[adios]

This post bothered me. I realize that the results of this trade might possibly be a result of variance. That certainly doesn't mean it was though. Why not actually give a statistical argument why that could very possibly be the case instead of a personal attack? I would think that the variance in prices for these two could be determined from historical data and thus a credible argument supporting your point might be made. Why make this a personal attack? That bothered me.

The second thing that bothers me is why not address Dave's idea(s) about market effeciency on which Dave based this trade on? I can't remember one recommendation where Dave has been wrong on that he's made on this forum over the years. Believe me this is not a brown nosing Dave post either. Far from it. However, my view is that it's hard enough to money in the market on a cosistent basis (hey I readily admit I'm not a guru or a genious) and when someone with Dave's credentials and track record for making money in shall we say speculative endeavors I value that input a great deal. For me it's about making money period. IMO what you've done here is discourage Dave. From my perspective I can easily see someone with good credentials and a good track record responding to personal attacks saying "screw you guys, since you you're a genious anyway." Why rain at least on my parade?

[David Sklansky]

"Celebrating after a 2 week move in the stock price of around 15% reminds me of people posting their win rates after moving up in limits for a few thousand hands."

You would be more right if you were talking about an individual stock.

[Senor Choppy]

[ QUOTE ]
This post bothered me. I realize that the results of this trade might possibly be a result of variance. That certainly doesn't mean it was though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if it was the greatest stock call in the history of mankind, I just thought it was pretty gay for the guy to make the 'look at me, two stocks I recommended moved 15%!' post afterwards.

[ QUOTE ]
Why not actually give a statistical argument why that could very possibly be the case instead of a personal attack? I would think that the variance in prices for these two could be determined from historical data and thus a credible argument supporting your point might be made. Why make this a personal attack? That bothered me.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't really make a difference to me one way or another. His original ideas were excellent. The resulting 15% moves weren't really a confirmation of that, and even if it were, I thought the follow up post was pretty sad.

[ QUOTE ]
For me it's about making money period. IMO what you've done here is discourage Dave.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough.

[Senor Choppy]

It's like recommending any sector, you can probably be right on every stock pick you make half the time if you suggest putting all your money in JNJ, MRK, PFE, and BMY, for example.

[Redsox]

As far as prognosticators of market movements or as far as explanantions of stock valuations or trading strategies, you guys are pretty good poker players. Perhaps we've all been given talents for certain specific job related tasks. Its clear where yours lie.

P.S. I enjoy your books immensely and your poker accumen is invaluable to me.

[David Sklansky]

Perhaps we've all been given talents for certain specific job related tasks. Its clear where yours lie.

P.S. I enjoy your books immensely and your poker accumen is invaluable to me.

I do not have any great poker accumen. I am better at poker than almost anyone including thousands who have more poker talent, simply because I am smarter than they are. Arrogant but true. The same thing would happen if I applied myself to most other fields.

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
I am better at poker than almost anyone including thousands who have more poker talent, simply because I am smarter than they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that how it works, smarter = better and smartest = best, or are you an exception? Or do other factors, like temperment, experience, discipline, instestinal fortitude, etc. play big roles?

Are the best 80/160 players smarter than the best 30/60 players and so on and so on, down to the 4/8 players?

Eventually you get as good at poker that you can be for as smart as you are?

I need to know, cuz I'm smart, but I'm no El Diablo, ole!