This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Research, reports and other stuff

Jump to new
Gold bugs may or may not be aware the IMF plans to sell a considerable portion of their gold reserves as one of the outcomes of the G20 summit.

This note looks at the potential impact of the sale of on the market price for gold.
 

Attachments

  • IMF-Gold-Sales---April-2-2009.pdf
    103.1 KB · Views: 15
Garpal Gumnut said:
I haven't read it mate but economists by definition are bad drivers with an eye on the rear mirror for comment on the present.

Thus they have prangs.

gg
Click to expand...
Such appropriate succinctness again, g.g.
 
Morgan Stanley say the bear market isn't over and they're selling equities.
 

Attachments

  • MS Teun-Draaisma---April-06 2009.pdf
    358.6 KB · Views: 26
The Westpac consumer sentiment indicator has turned the corner and is showing positive signs. It is more of a confidence indicator (i.e. 'we avioded a technical recesssion so I've a better chance of keeping my job' type sentiment) but consumers spending is a good thing for Western economies.


View attachment er20090610BullConsumerSentiment.pdf
 
Attached is a link to one of the better investment overviews I have read in recent times. Have a read.

Copyright means that the memo cannot be reproduced so you will need to follow the web-site link.

http://www.oaktreecapital.com/memo.aspx

PS: this thread has died off of recent times? Pity as no matter what you think about the conflicts of interest in analyst world, there is some very useful data and opinions out there.
 
I haven't posted here for a while (not sure if anyone is reading). The attached report is one of the most interesting I've read in some time. It deals with trading strategies in sideways markets. Those that have profited heavily from trend-following strategies should give it a read.
 

Attachments

  • leggmason-sidewardmarkets[1].pdf
    180.5 KB · Views: 28
DoctorJ when ever I read these studies I get a sneaking suspicion that their stats of performance are not ever as good in real live as they quote. There was no mention of accounting for survivorship bias.

Over the period they were talking about stacks of companies would of dropped out of the indexes and like wise many added. Its always dodgy to take these "38 % of stock double over 3 years" quotes when they don't explicitly say they include the starting list of index constituents rather than the ending list. makes a big diff.

But in any case I like this thread, keep'em coming.
 
Could always email the author and ask?
 
An interesting study of the 10 lessons not learnt by the markets, including the anatomy of a bubble, why funds don't outperform and why everyone needs to move on from EMH.
 

Attachments

  • anatomy of a bubble.pdf
    528.1 KB · Views: 17
My question to you from concerning the leggmason-sidewardmarkets

Maybe I'm missing the point but isn't 100% over one year far different to 100% over 5years. If we were talking about annual growth I could understand the comparison i could understand it however we are comparing 100%+ annual growth to 15%+ annual growth. whats is the point of these two comparisons.
 
Of course they're very different. One return is solid, the other is astronomical. 15%, year in, year out is nothing to be sneezed at, especially when the index is doing nothing. To be honest, I doubt all that many here returned 15% on average, each year for 5 years during the good times.
 
Ever wonder what lasting impact, if any, the global financial crisis will have on you? Well, you'll be an unmarried alcoholic with one or more children that's unlikely to live as long as your parents.

Or so says Don Peck of The Atlantic - http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...-new-jobless-era-will-transform-america/7919/

It's a well written article (if a little long) that should encourage a little naval gazing if you're under 25. One particularly interesting fact from the article was a study that proved a graduate's first job was overwhelming the primary factor in lifetime earnings. The lesson? It's unlikely you'll be able to trade up to a high-earning career if you start out in a lower earning position.
 
doctorj said:
The lesson? It's unlikely you'll be able to trade up to a high-earning career if you start out in a lower earning position.
Click to expand...

A friend of a friend of mine about 3 weeks ago was head hunted by a fortune 500 company. He graduates this year and they are offering him a starting salary of 400,000 first year out...i dont think he will have to trade up!

N.T
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ultimate Acronym List (UAL)
Replies
0
Views
5K
Dividend
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...