<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Investing via Media Market Timing</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/02/investing-via-media/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/02/investing-via-media/</link>
	<description>Macro Perspective on the Capital Markets, Economy, Geopolitics, Technology, and Digital Media</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:10:06 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: AGG</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/02/investing-via-media/comment-page-1/#comment-144656</link>
		<dc:creator>AGG</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2009 03:25:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=18569#comment-144656</guid>
		<description>BR: Luck never hurts, but I know too many smart successful traders/fund managers to believe its purely random.
In order to truely test whether the &quot;market&quot; is random, you&#039;d have to be the Supreme Being. But let&#039;s say that the correct definition of smart successful traders/fund managers is a person who doesn&#039;t lie to his clients (ever) for added profit, does attempt to make a market with his client&#039;s stock to help his clients, never front runs, never charges fees off client&#039;s losses, never jacks up fees on client gains  and never makes use of inside information, then I would say that from a monetary profit point of view, if this person becomes wealthy, it&#039;s mainly from luck. I maintain that the greater fool theory rules wall street and is what eventually causes the crashes. They just can&#039;t seem to be satisfied with modesty and honesty. So they charge ahead and pretty soon you have a herd of bulls charging right off a cliff along with their clients. Everybody else is doing it is part of the problem. Then again, I&#039;ve always worked hard but I&#039;m neither rich nor ambitious so I just don&#039;t get it. I&#039;ve piloted multimillion dollar aircraft but I could never justify owning one. I emember in 1983 when Microsoft launched realizing that it was going to go places but I never bought a share. I &quot;invested&quot; in my wife and kids and furthering my education. I&#039;m not sorry.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>BR: Luck never hurts, but I know too many smart successful traders/fund managers to believe its purely random.<br />
In order to truely test whether the &#8220;market&#8221; is random, you&#8217;d have to be the Supreme Being. But let&#8217;s say that the correct definition of smart successful traders/fund managers is a person who doesn&#8217;t lie to his clients (ever) for added profit, does attempt to make a market with his client&#8217;s stock to help his clients, never front runs, never charges fees off client&#8217;s losses, never jacks up fees on client gains  and never makes use of inside information, then I would say that from a monetary profit point of view, if this person becomes wealthy, it&#8217;s mainly from luck. I maintain that the greater fool theory rules wall street and is what eventually causes the crashes. They just can&#8217;t seem to be satisfied with modesty and honesty. So they charge ahead and pretty soon you have a herd of bulls charging right off a cliff along with their clients. Everybody else is doing it is part of the problem. Then again, I&#8217;ve always worked hard but I&#8217;m neither rich nor ambitious so I just don&#8217;t get it. I&#8217;ve piloted multimillion dollar aircraft but I could never justify owning one. I emember in 1983 when Microsoft launched realizing that it was going to go places but I never bought a share. I &#8220;invested&#8221; in my wife and kids and furthering my education. I&#8217;m not sorry.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: timbuck2</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/02/investing-via-media/comment-page-1/#comment-144655</link>
		<dc:creator>timbuck2</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2009 03:15:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=18569#comment-144655</guid>
		<description>Must go for &#039;newsletter writers&quot; as well.    Its always easy when you are looking back to cherry pick your agenda........seems to be a pattern with you BR.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Must go for &#8216;newsletter writers&#8221; as well.    Its always easy when you are looking back to cherry pick your agenda&#8230;&#8230;..seems to be a pattern with you BR.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hawleyl</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/02/investing-via-media/comment-page-1/#comment-144654</link>
		<dc:creator>hawleyl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2009 02:35:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=18569#comment-144654</guid>
		<description>In physics there is an &quot;uncertainty principle&quot;.  This principle applies to measuring phenomena.  I like to apply a corollary that states the more you interact with something, the less certain you are of what you are measuring.  For example if you ask 100 people to measure the air pressure in a time, the resulting average may be the tire pressure at the time the 50th person did a measurement (since a bit of air escapes on each measurement).  So once a &quot;fact&quot; is published and multitudes of people interact based on the &quot;fact&quot; (that lives in the past), the basis for the &quot;fact&quot; (in the present) has changed.

I like this blog because it helps with strategic planning as opposed to tactical operations.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In physics there is an &#8220;uncertainty principle&#8221;.  This principle applies to measuring phenomena.  I like to apply a corollary that states the more you interact with something, the less certain you are of what you are measuring.  For example if you ask 100 people to measure the air pressure in a time, the resulting average may be the tire pressure at the time the 50th person did a measurement (since a bit of air escapes on each measurement).  So once a &#8220;fact&#8221; is published and multitudes of people interact based on the &#8220;fact&#8221; (that lives in the past), the basis for the &#8220;fact&#8221; (in the present) has changed.</p>
<p>I like this blog because it helps with strategic planning as opposed to tactical operations.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: H.T.</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/02/investing-via-media/comment-page-1/#comment-144650</link>
		<dc:creator>H.T.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2009 01:44:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=18569#comment-144650</guid>
		<description>Anyone who read Taleb&#039;s first book, &#039;Fooled by Randomness&#039; would have learned to ignore financial media for  better financial health.

However i have to agree with some of the posts above re: said host&#039;s own flip-flops etc etc--so i guess this media post piece means you&#039;re all in, right Barry?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Anyone who read Taleb&#8217;s first book, &#8216;Fooled by Randomness&#8217; would have learned to ignore financial media for  better financial health.</p>
<p>However i have to agree with some of the posts above re: said host&#8217;s own flip-flops etc etc&#8211;so i guess this media post piece means you&#8217;re all in, right Barry?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: royrogers</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/02/investing-via-media/comment-page-1/#comment-144644</link>
		<dc:creator>royrogers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2009 00:24:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=18569#comment-144644</guid>
		<description>another one of BR&#039;s circumstantial media indicators that have no basis on
statistiscal science.
At any moment in time, there are many bullish and bearish commentaries,
and even if all the commentary is bearish, it does not indicate that at the moment,
the markets are ready to run up.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>another one of BR&#8217;s circumstantial media indicators that have no basis on<br />
statistiscal science.<br />
At any moment in time, there are many bullish and bearish commentaries,<br />
and even if all the commentary is bearish, it does not indicate that at the moment,<br />
the markets are ready to run up.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TrickStyle</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/02/investing-via-media/comment-page-1/#comment-144641</link>
		<dc:creator>TrickStyle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Feb 2009 23:11:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=18569#comment-144641</guid>
		<description>I suspect it&#039;s possible to pull quotes from the very same sources that argues the exact opposite position.  Which further supports the argument to lose the news, I suppose.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I suspect it&#8217;s possible to pull quotes from the very same sources that argues the exact opposite position.  Which further supports the argument to lose the news, I suppose.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MikeKennedy</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/02/investing-via-media/comment-page-1/#comment-144636</link>
		<dc:creator>MikeKennedy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Feb 2009 22:31:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=18569#comment-144636</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s actually as simple as trading the tone of Bob Pisani and Maria Bartiromo.  Especially Pisani.  If you just fade either the euphoria or &quot;the sky is falling&quot;, it&#039;s a winner, guaranteed.  Why wait for the magazines?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s actually as simple as trading the tone of Bob Pisani and Maria Bartiromo.  Especially Pisani.  If you just fade either the euphoria or &#8220;the sky is falling&#8221;, it&#8217;s a winner, guaranteed.  Why wait for the magazines?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: constantnormal</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/02/investing-via-media/comment-page-1/#comment-144633</link>
		<dc:creator>constantnormal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Feb 2009 21:49:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=18569#comment-144633</guid>
		<description>So what are the MSM saying today? 

Are the markets ready to tank, or is the bottom in and only blue skies above?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So what are the MSM saying today? </p>
<p>Are the markets ready to tank, or is the bottom in and only blue skies above?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AGG</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/02/investing-via-media/comment-page-1/#comment-144630</link>
		<dc:creator>AGG</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Feb 2009 20:58:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=18569#comment-144630</guid>
		<description>Smart people can lose fortunes because making or losing a fortune on wall street is the product of luck, not brains. I&#039;m referring to honest traders. The hidden fee crooks do make fortunes with their brains. Those people ruin it for everyone else. It took over 50 years for people to get over their fear and distrust of wall street. Now the crooks have trashed good will again. And all for a quick buck. Short term smarts equal long term stupidity.


~~~

&lt;B&gt;BR&lt;/b&gt;: Luck never hurts, but I know too many smart successful traders/fund managers to believe its purely random. 

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Smart people can lose fortunes because making or losing a fortune on wall street is the product of luck, not brains. I&#8217;m referring to honest traders. The hidden fee crooks do make fortunes with their brains. Those people ruin it for everyone else. It took over 50 years for people to get over their fear and distrust of wall street. Now the crooks have trashed good will again. And all for a quick buck. Short term smarts equal long term stupidity.</p>
<p>~~~</p>
<p><b>BR</b>: Luck never hurts, but I know too many smart successful traders/fund managers to believe its purely random.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AGG</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/02/investing-via-media/comment-page-1/#comment-144629</link>
		<dc:creator>AGG</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Feb 2009 20:50:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=18569#comment-144629</guid>
		<description>So tell me, when you walk by a magazine and newspaper stand around 8:30 in the morning, what goes through your mind? 
I mean besides the fact that breakfast bagel was too tough?
Gee, that stand looks lonely today. Where&#039;s the hustle and bustle? Market timing? Put a pedestrian traffic counter on wall street.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So tell me, when you walk by a magazine and newspaper stand around 8:30 in the morning, what goes through your mind?<br />
I mean besides the fact that breakfast bagel was too tough?<br />
Gee, that stand looks lonely today. Where&#8217;s the hustle and bustle? Market timing? Put a pedestrian traffic counter on wall street.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
