- This topic has 66 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 1 month ago by
EJ.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 25, 2006 at 10:35 PM #7608September 25, 2006 at 11:11 PM #36432
sdduuuude
ParticipantJust to clarify – if you say someone is a consistently bad analyst, is that criticizing the person or the analysis?
September 26, 2006 at 12:22 AM #36442justme
ParticipantI did not see powayseller call someone a consistently bad
analyst.This is your own conclusion to draw, for example
if powayseller showed a number of times that someone;s
analysis was bad.September 26, 2006 at 6:03 AM #36449powayseller
ParticipantCalling someone a consistently bad analyst is a personal statement. I agree with justme, that we show someone’s analysis is bad by showing the weakness in their arguments and then everyone can see it was a bad analysis.
Professionals debate the topic, not the person. Hugo Chavez’s inability to stick to that dictum made him look like a “comic strip cartoon”. Instead of laying out why he disagrees with our policies, he started name calling. That made him look like a kid with a tantrum, and it was hard for anybody at the U.N. to take him seriously after that. (Any other comments about Chavez, please start a new thread; let’s save this one for “staying on topic”).
September 26, 2006 at 8:42 AM #36466(former)FormerSanDiegan
ParticipantThen why do we pound on Daveid Lereah so much ?
Because he’s been wrong and behind the curve consistently.
I agree with Sduuuuude. If the messenger is wrong so many times it becomes part of the message and an objective evaluation of the message often does include “past performance”.
September 26, 2006 at 8:49 AM #36467JES
ParticipantAlthough we should strive to focus on attacking the issue and not the person, there are plenty of times that the person needs to get dragged in as well. EG: There are those who are not fond of our current president, and they are well within their right to be critical of him and his programs.
September 26, 2006 at 9:40 AM #36478ParticipantWe pound on Lereah because he is misrepresenting the facts, i.e. he’s definitely lying because he has something to gain. No matter how much I would debate him, I’m certain he would not change his tune, because he is married to his agenda. So is Alan Gin, and that’s why I called Alan Gin a liar, and I signed my name to that. There is no use in debating with them, as their main goal is protecting their agenda, not learning or spreading the truth.
I don’t think anyone on this forum intends to mislead. In a forum, disagreements should be handled as they are in a debate, where you win not by shouting louder, but by arguing better. Logic trumps.
We don’t have agendas here. We’re willing to change our minds if a better argument is made. For example, when I first came here, I was sort of anti-realtor, but now I’m more pro-realtor, I was anti-gold and now am pro-gold. I don’t have an agenda to protect, just a sincere desire to learn with you all. I compliment people who are better than I. I compliment Chris on his trading, jg on his models, Rich on his early bubble call, lindismith for being an entrepreneur, etc. I started this thread mainly because some people like picking on me just because they disagree, and I was hoping this forum wouldn’t degenerate like so many others. Let’s keep it positive, folks.
September 26, 2006 at 9:52 AM #36480PerryChase
ParticipantGive powayseller a break. I, for one, am willing to forgive her for any faux-pas because I’m thankful for the analysis. It was very bold of her to come straight out with a -50% forecast. I believe that many of the scenarios she considered are coming to fruition. Few have the guts to say what she did. Most would incrementally change their forecast in small steps as the situation deteriorates.
I think that powayseller has super analytical skills and a great feel of where the market is heading.
When you try to predict the future you always have to make assumptions like x% of ARMs will default. Sure they haven’t defaulted yet but let’s just imagine that they would.
So what if her delivery is at times blunt? If she were circumspect and qualified everything that she said as only possibilities, her writing would be very boring and long-winded.
September 26, 2006 at 10:48 AM #36488anxvariety
ParticipantSeptember 26, 2006 at 12:07 PM #36494woodrow
ParticipantWe pound on Lereah because he is misrepresenting the facts.
That's EXACTLY why a few of us called you out last night PS. You were misrepresenting facts!
"1.46 million loans at risk" does NOT equal "1.46 million defaults expected".
Sorry, but your title and analysis was very misleading. When called on it, you refused to acknowledge your error and instead became very thin skinned. I AGREE with 90% of your analysis PS, but you become far too defensive when challenged. If someone points out an error in your analysis, it's nothing personal, just constructive criticism.
Finally, it's okay for you to call analysts "liars" and run posters away from this board, but when you're called to task on an obvious error, you start threads asking not to be picked on? Can't have it both way, Mrs. 🙂
September 26, 2006 at 12:12 PM #36495ParticipantLet’s just all be a little thicker skinned around here and everything will be well and dandy. Don’t start talking about my momma though or we gonna have trouble!
September 26, 2006 at 1:36 PM #36507speedingpullet
ParticipantYeah:
Hate the Game and not the Player….;-)
September 26, 2006 at 3:10 PM #36516ParticipantPerry Chase wrote:
“I think that powayseller has super analytical skills and a great feel of where the market is heading. ”You, Perry Chase, have been fooled, my friend. She has great research skills. She finds things others have done and presents them. She is best when she presents them without comment, and worst when she tries to add her own insight.
Her blunt delivery would not pose a problems to me if only she were a better analyst.
September 26, 2006 at 3:34 PM #36518ParticipantMaybe as a group we do not have paid agendas, but as a minimum we have biases and desires that things turn out in our favor. We read as much into incoming data as possible to support our view, and point out flaws in incoming data that go against our assumption. That’s human nature. It’s only when we reconsider our own biases that we move forward and learn.
When I say to my friend that rents are going to start dropping and my friend says, “You are on crack.” I don’t take it personally that he believes that I am partaking in the consumption of a highly addictive agent.
Instead I take that time to reconsider my position and determine whether the current vacancy rate of 1.8% might support my friend’s point of view. Whether or not my friend led me to the data, at least his reaction is enough to get me thinking, even if he is the one smoking crack.
September 26, 2006 at 5:04 PM #36527ParticipantOn the point of powayseller not presenting original information, my response is that NO ONE, not even the professional forecasters, develops all original data. They all use some information developed by others then develop their own arguments about what that information means.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.