Skip to main content

Market-Predicting Gurus Worse Than Flipping A Coin

Yet another study showing how poorly prognosticators do. There's too much noise in the markets in the short run to have any forecasting methodology with reliable predictive ability. And if there were such a methodology, why would anyone share it rather than make huge profits for themselves?
 
- Kevin Kroskey, CFP, MBA
 

Gurus Achieve An Astounding 47.4% Accuracy (From Forbes.com)
 
"After tracking 68 experts and 6,582 market forecasts, CXO Advisory Group has concluded that the average market prediction offered by experts has been below 50% accuracy.
 
The results are in and they are bad. After tracking 68 experts and 6,582 market forecasts, CXO Advisory Group has concluded that the average market prediction offered by experts has been below 50% accuracy. Flip a coin and your odds for predicting the market are better.

It’s hard to imagine that the average market expert isn’t able to at least match the track record of a coin flip, but it’s true. Figure 1 has, by name, the relative performance accuracy of every guru that CXO Guru Grades has tracked.

From 2005 through 2012, CXO collected 6,582 forecasts for the U.S. stock market offered publicly by 68 experts, bulls and bears employing technical, fundamental and sentiment indicators. Collected forecasts also included those in CXO’s archives. The oldest forecast in the sample is from the end of 1998.

The selected public records are sometimes found on the web sites of the gurus themselves and sometimes on web sites of other parties (for example, the business media). Especially for the former, CXO looked for archives that are clearly dated and not retrospectively filtered to avoid cherry-picking.
 

Some of the Gurus dropped out of the race along the way and their records stopped at their last prediction. Other Gurus sited reasons for their lackluster performances. For a compilation of general objections and defenses made by the Guru’s under scrutiny, see The Demon’s Defense.

This marks the final tally of CXO Guru Grade project. Proprietor Steve LeCompte doesn’t see a practical reason for continuing the study. The point about inaccurate market forecasts as shown again, and again, and again."

This article prepared by Forbes.

Popular posts from this blog

Diversification: Disciplinarian of Disciplinarians

Disciplined diversification works when you do and even when you don't want it to. Diversification in effect forces you to sell the thing that has been doing so well in your portfolio and to buy the thing that hasn't. While this makes rational sense, it is emotionally difficult to execute. Think back to the tail end of 2008--were you selling bonds and cash to buy stocks? Most likely you weren't unless your advisor or some sort of automatic trigger did it for you. Carl Richards of www.behaviorgap.com provided a good reminder of how diversification works in a recent NY Times blog post. The diversification he discusses here is more so related to equity asset-class diversification but also touches on the three basic building blocks--equities, bonds, and cash. He doesn't discuss alternative asset classes -- an asset class that doesn't fit neatly into the three basic categories -- being used to further diversification, but that's a detailed topic for another day.

The Value of Double-Checking & Monitoring Your Retirement Strategy

Motivational speaker Denis Waitley once remarked, “You must stick to your conviction, but be ready to abandon your assumptions.” That statement certainly applies to retirement planning. Your effort must not waver, yet you must also examine it from time to time. 1       Perhaps you may realize that you under-estimated your health insurance costs and will need more retirement income than previously assumed. Or perhaps, with today's low interest rates you are not getting the level of investment returns you counted on. With those factors and others in mind, here are some signs that you may need to double-check your retirement strategy.     Your portfolio lacks significant diversification. Many baby boomers are approaching retirement with portfolios heavily weighted in U.S. equities. As many of them will have long retirements and a sustained need for growth investing, you could argue that this is entirely appropriate. Yet, U.S. equities by some measures may be over-valued by

65-80 Year Olds … A New and Exciting Demography

Should today’s 70-year-old American be considered “old?” How do you define that term these days? Statistically, your average 70-year-old has just a 2% chance of dying within a year. The estimated upper limits of average life expectancy is now 97, and a rapidly growing number of 70-year-olds will live past age 100. Perhaps more importantly, today’s 70-year-olds are in much better shape than their grandparents were at the same age. In most developed countries, healthy life expectancy from age 50 is growing faster than life expectancy itself, suggesting that the period of diminished vigor and ill health towards the end of life is being compressed. A recent series of articles in the Economist magazine suggest that we need a new term for people age 65 to 80, who are generally healthy and hearty, capable of knowledge-based work on an equal footing with 25-year-olds, and who are increasingly being shunted out of the workforce as if they were invalids or, well, “old.” Indeed, the a