| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 95.1 | Only if they tracked right... | SALEM::SHAH_J | | Thu Mar 12 1992 17:21 | 26 |
|
I believe, this is the same magazine that was earlier called
"Mutual Fund Forecaster". I had subscribed to it once and
boy, they have never left me alone since then...
Their predictions were never consistent and recommendations
never made any sence to long-term investors. (ex; they would
recommend "BUY" in one issue and "hold" in the next and "buy"
in the next and so on...). I would suggest NOT to waste your
time & money. Once you do, "million" letters with different
headings will come to you - the first one will be "if you renew
NOW you will have..., receive...., etc." Many with the names
of Research Institute, advantages of subscribing, discounts,
even overdue subscription notices and what not... My subscription
expired over 2 years ago and I am still getting the notices.
I have expressed my opinion about these people over here a
while back. And it was supported by others. Bottom line: I
found Money magazine more reliable than these so-called experts.
Why waste $49 (@ 50% discount)?
Jay
PS: I also received the same pamphlet that you did. Same
old address with different name... I had a giggle...
|
| 95.2 | Same publisher | VMSDEV::HAMMOND | Charlie Hammond -- ZKO3-04/S23 -- dtn 381-2684 | Thu Mar 12 1992 17:56 | 2 |
| "Fund Watch" and "Mutual Fund Forcaster" are seperate publications
by the same publisher.
|
| 95.3 | Major Trend Muddle | EPIK::FINNERTY | | Thu Mar 12 1992 19:48 | 15 |
|
Well, I recently bought Norman Fosback's book, read it, was impressed,
and so signed up for "Market Logic" on a trial basis.
The first issues arrived last week, and I cancelled the next morning.
Why? Their 'major trend model' has been bullish since well before
1987. Raving bullish.
I give them credit for posting the long term results on page 1, but
in my opinion it is just proof that their 'econometric' major trend
model simply doesn't work.
/Jim
|
| 95.4 | "Major" implies several years, does it not? | MINAR::BISHOP | | Fri Mar 13 1992 13:00 | 9 |
| re .3
What's your beef? The overall trend since 1987 _is_ bullish.
Since 1982 the right thing has been to be in the market.
Or did you want _minor_ trends, so you could avoid the various
crashes and no-growth periods?
-John Bishop
|
| 95.5 | in the looong run | EPIK::FINNERTY | | Fri Mar 13 1992 14:49 | 14 |
|
er, sorry, but the major trend since 1933 has been pretty easy to
predict. We're talking here about a 'reasonable' time window. Missing
major market crashes, as 1987 is generally acknowledged to be, is
missing the 'major trends' as far as I am concerned.
If trends are defined long enough so that major market crashes do not
matter, then the prediction is pointless anyway.
How much of a change in the value of the market are you willing to
consider to be a minor fluctuation?
/Jim
|