- Joined
- 28 December 2013
- Posts
- 6,390
- Reactions
- 24,317
It’s great to see active discussions like this unfolding here on the forum. I want to take a moment to acknowledge @Richard Dale ’s contributions to this thread.@Richard Dale . You should never post when you are angry. Take it from an expert.
Whatever the rights and wrongs, you have made your point. I don't use data anymore as there is so much free stuff out there that satisfies my needs.
On a positive note it would now appear that your systems are now robust enough to prevent people using your data free. If it had been me I would have said nothing, I guess you've never served in the army, the last thing you share is intel on those opposing you. I briefly thought of really testing your systems but decided against it as time is more precious to me than idle fun.
I do understand your angst as it is your livelihood that is being threatened. @Skate has apologised.
gg
It’s great to see active discussions like this unfolding here on the forum. I want to take a moment to acknowledge @Richard Dale ’s contributions to this thread.
The goal of forums like this is to foster informed and challenging discussions, where alternate views can be shared freely and without fear of ridicule or hostility. Richard’s perspective brings up valid concerns about the importance of transparency and evidence, particularly when discussing models or formulas that impact decision-making. Without sharing the specifics of the model or formula, it becomes difficult for others to critically evaluate or engage with its validity.
While it’s natural to have strong opinions, we should remember that respectful dialogue is the foundation of productive debate. Challenging @Skate on the transparency of the model isn’t about discrediting their perspective but about holding ideas to a higher standard of scrutiny for the benefit of the community. This type of constructive challenge is exactly what fosters better understanding and informed decision-making.
Let’s continue to challenge ideas, not individuals, and ensure that this forum remains a space for thoughtful, respectful exchange of ideas. Transparency and open critique will make the discussions here even more meaningful.
The goal of forums like this is to foster informed and challenging discussions, where alternate views can be shared freely and without fear of ridicule or hostility.
By sharing both broad insights and enough detail for meaningful critique, we can ensure this thread continues to spark ideas, encourage follow-up research, and benefit members with varying levels of experience.
I agree with your comments. However it can be done in a tactful way via PM.It’s great to see active discussions like this unfolding here on the forum. I want to take a moment to acknowledge @Richard Dale ’s contributions to this thread.
The goal of forums like this is to foster informed and challenging discussions, where alternate views can be shared freely and without fear of ridicule or hostility. Richard’s perspective brings up valid concerns about the importance of transparency and evidence, particularly when discussing models or formulas that impact decision-making. Without sharing the specifics of the model or formula, it becomes difficult for others to critically evaluate or engage with its validity.
While it’s natural to have strong opinions, we should remember that respectful dialogue is the foundation of productive debate. Challenging @Skate on the transparency of the model isn’t about discrediting their perspective but about holding ideas to a higher standard of scrutiny for the benefit of the community. This type of constructive challenge is exactly what fosters better understanding and informed decision-making.
Let’s continue to challenge ideas, not individuals, and ensure that this forum remains a space for thoughtful, respectful exchange of ideas. Transparency and open critique will make the discussions here even more meaningful.
Also this may not look good for both parties. It's my humble opinion.
just keep checking AI is improving for the task you set it
while your AI can search wider and deeper ( and quicker ) make sure it doesn't vacuum up flawed data to process in the mission
yes , sentiment and dubious news affects the short-term share price , but long term accuracy of data counts
For a long time now , I' ve been thinking If I was starting from scratch all over again , I 'd not even bother with individual shares . They are just too much work for a young person not yet addicted to the damn things . Instead , I'd put all my efforts into choosing ( or paying for the advice on : ) a bunch of ETF's .The Key Takeaways
#1. (AI) is great at crunching numbers but struggles to understand the nuances of the markets.
#2. IMHO, if you’re using (AI) for stock picks, treat it as a tool, not a crystal ball.
For a long time now , I' ve been thinking If I was starting from scratch all over again , I 'd not even bother with individual shares . They are just too much work for a young person not yet addicted to the damn things . Instead , I'd put all my efforts into choosing ( or paying for the advice on : ) a bunch of ETF's .
My query now : Will AI ever surpass ETF's ? Perhaps it's too early to tell , wait for a bear market .
Skate - the "excercise" was on "income stocks" but you have completely ignored dividends in all of your reports, so your conclusion is flawed.
Going back to the original list and based upon your start date of 2024-01-22 (and using open price), here's the results, inclusive of dividends (total return) for the first 12 month period, not including brokerage or tax.
2024-01-22 (At Open) - 2025-01-21 (At Close)
Don Hamson - Plato Investment Management 20.40%
IOZ.au iShares Core S&P/ASX 200 ETF 16.62%
AI 12.31%
Skate Portfolio 4.72%
However, if we use the dates in the article, the here at the results inclusive of dividends (total return) , not including brokerage or tax:
2024-02-05 (At Close) + 12 months = 2025-02-04 (At Close)
Don Hamson - Plato Investment Management 21.18%
IOZ.au iShares Core S&P/ASX 200 ETF 13.54%
AI 10.50%
Skate Portfolio 0.11%
And a point of comparison on the yearly CPI rate:
CPI (Dec 2023-Dec 2024) 2.42%
(it should be noted that my total return figures differ from the article - I'm going to get in touch with the author)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?