- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,299
- Reactions
- 17,535
Personally I'd rather a sound track record over qualifications any day when it comes to fundamentals.The problem with Fundamentals Analysis is the Experience and Qualifications of the Analyst
...
With any Fundamental Analysis I would like to see some Letters after their post
How else can anyone distinguish between a qualified expert's opinnion and a Ramper?
Just look at all those highly qualified "oil will be $20 for the next few decades" types from not that long ago. It was the (generally unqualified in financial matters) people who actually knew something about physical oil production who got it right. Those in the suits with letters after their name are still wondering what happened to their $20 oil.
Some of the things those clowns say about production are outright crazy. And yet they just keep trotting out the same old rubbish year after year and never seem to get sacked for it. It's laughable to see everyone suddenly so concerned about a report from the IEA when that is the very same organisation that's been so profoundly wrong in practically every forecast for more than a decade. Very highly qualified and absolutely well regarded. And essentially useless in terms of longer term forecasting.
Proof not Profession IMO. There's plenty of fools with degrees who are good at nothing apart from passing exams (most definitely a skill in itself, admittedly one that most don't have). Plenty of very good, highly qualified people too of course. But simply holding a degree and having letters after your name does not in itself prove real ability. You need a decent track record to go with it, something that many professionals in the investment world seem to lack.