Posted on 09/18/2005 7:58:04 PM PDT by Crackingham
That would normally be a VP of Strategy & Corporate Development. In your case, how about VP of Competitive Development?
As do, know doubt, allegedly intelligent researchers who make whacked-out statements like this one without the least shred of evidence.
I've worked in at least two of those companies...
bttt
So, if you are a socialist and have no “financial decisions” to make, does that mean you are brain dead?
This would lead to an interesting choice between being a poor brain dead socialist, a rich functioning psychopath, or some normal guy who eats pizza, drinks beer, an watches TV?
Decisions, decisions!
I worked for one corp. thst you would have sworn Hannibal Lector was the CEO.
Or,
Hey, I invented functioning psychopaths!
This could help explain free traitors.
Utter bull$#!+.
The headline is a total non-sequiter.
On the other hand, people with Aspberger's Syndrome do tend to excel in many areas, especially engineering and often business. But this is because they do not interact with others very well, and they tend to spend long hours in solitary, intense concentration usually working on something or another. That's why they used to call Aspberger's the "Engineer's Disease".
It's excellent and has a number of true case histories of real psychopaths and their activities.
THE MASK OF SANITY Free Download for study (Adobe Acrobat .pdf)
It has also been proven, mathetmatically, that investing in index funds is better than trying to play around in the market. Stock brokers and fund managers, besides those that use 'market tricks' (complex computer programs that exploit very small differences by using large funds), are generally all marketing a useless product... :)
In 10 years brokers will be a novelty. It'll be about competing software systems.
This explains why all the people on those Poker Championship shows look nuts.
BTW, For those that want someone else to invest for you because you don't have what it takes, luck is the only thing you have in your favor. You can't pay someone to love your child or care for your money. Win or lose, they get their's( out of your account). Good luck. If the market goes up, you MIGHT make some money. But if it goes down, You will take the fall with it, because they will ride it to the ground without any put protection and they aren't able to short. You will stay in all the diverified stocks even though they are out of favor and will continue to be. If interest rates are going up, why buy banks? If gas is high, why buy airlines?(why buy airlines anytime?) Reasoning like that is not allowed in most mutual funds.
You are mistaken, put a bit of effort into researching various active investment funds, and you should be able to identify brokers who beat the market quite consistently.
---
I've read what I've stated in numerous places from a variety of sources. Of course, I have an open mind to being wrong...
Just an example (not sure if this was the nobel prize winner or not that I was thinking of):
http://fisher.osu.edu/news/1999/991110c-indexfunds.htm
The student results follow a premise defined by William Sharpe, a Nobel Prize winning economist and statistician who pioneered studies on the same topic. He basically came to the conclusion that in the long run--over a 10-year span--you come out ahead investing in a variety of index funds.
“You can’t find a mutual fund that, minus expenses, beats an appropriate portfolio of indexes over the long haul,” Valentino said.
This does not surprise me. I learned firsthand long ago that acute grief (i.e. death of someone) is a bad mixer for trading decisions, as it severely distorts risk perception. It seems very logical that being able to take the greed perception out as well would be very useful.
Can I get one of these surgeries?
" Of course, why didn't I think of that. Real investing is making "high stakes gambles." What utter crock."
It is more accurate to say trading is, though the comparison really is too simplistic.
Cramer, despite his apparently high popularity, in many ways personifies the crowd in the market. His eurphoia and depression on whatever topics too many times have called the bottom/top.
An interesting aside, having already gone through what many traders probably do (trading shortly after death in close family), and experiencing how the grief serious screws up the brain's appreciation of risk, making it seem much less and thus some bad trades getting put on, I have recently seen the other side of the coin, and it is not inconsistent with this article.
Not the topic, but a major medical issue has provided a signifigant cap on upside in my personal life, BUT....having had greed or ambition canned, I am trading possibly better than ever. I haven't run %'s the last few months (they have been good), but the perception with all the fear of downside still present but not much excitement on upside has really simplified issues for trading. I still sell too soon, a hangover from mainly trading OTCBB/Pink Sheets, but it is an interesting study in how removing the perception of personal gain from profit/loss impacts trade selection and follow-up.
The only way to simulate this would be maybe trade close relatives SMALL account where you establish that profits are their's but that YOU will cover any losses (thus the small issue, it has to be spare change).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.