Critique the analysis, not the person: professional behavior

[powayseller]

carlisle, this is the post to which you are referring. I took it seriously, since it came from Merrill Lynch. Well, shoot me for believing Merrill Lynch!

Then FormerSanDiegan posted a chart going back for several decades, and it shows the correlation did not exist back then. So I thanked him for that.

Yesterday, I continued the discussion of this chart by posting a financial advisor’s study from iTulip.com, which shows statistically, housing and the stock market have a .84 correlation with a 1 year lag since 1995.

So where is my bias? This Merrill Lynch-originated homebuilder/stock market chart made the internet rounds, and unfortunately some people posted only the data since 1995 without explaining that the prior years were exluded because the correlation was low. It was up to any of us, you included, to show that it did not go back far enough, and that there is a greater correlation between the index and housing since 1995. It’s too bad that nobody has made any theories as to why housing is the economy since 1995, and not before.

I post the stories that I like or that are interesting, and you can post the stories you like. In that vein, I would love to see some posts from you. What kind of articles strike your fancy, what do you consider worthy of posting, what kind of bias will you show in your posts?

I get bored reading my own stuff, and would love to read posts started by people who disagree with me! That is how we can get more diversity here. Don’t just wait for me to entertain you with my writing, and then complain about the content. Step up and start your own thread!

[JES]

NOTE FROM MODERATOR:

This thread is now officially closed in order to reduce personal attacks and critiques – the very actions this thread was initiated to stop. Future posters will be ruthlessly attacked personally and professionally until they stop posting.

[Bugs]

LOL

[powayseller]

oops, sorry I messed up the link.

[lewman]

wow some of us need to chill … now is that considered personal attack … lucky I didn’t mention any name …

[sdduuuude]

“Just to clarify, are you holding me to a higher standard than Nouriel Roubini or Barry Ritholtz? ”

No. They are professionals, who use massive amounts of data, and undoubtedly create large spreadsheet and/or database models to perform complicated analyses and reach insightful conclusions. You don’t even open Excel.

Problem is – I hold you to the same standards as them, and other world-class analysts (not economists) that I know personally, and you don’t stack up. Not even on the same planet as stacking up.

Just because you read Robini doesn’t mean you are Robini.

I appreciate it when you post interesting articles, I really do. But when you spin them improperly, it is very bothersome and erodes your value to this forum.

And I agree with woodrow’s evaluation of your inappropriate use of the word “expected”.

[sdduuuude]

Expected and at risk are completely different. Sadly, the term “at risk” is pretty vauge. “At risk” means there is some chance of success and some chance of failure. In this article that chance is never stated.

My issue with Powayseller is the way she turned a vauge statement into a very specific number. We don’t know how “at risk” those loans are yet Powayseller assumed they were at 100% risk.

Why assume %100 risk, then state it as fact, when the level of risk is simply not stated anywhere? That is the kind of bothersome powayseller conclusion jump that is so common in her posts.

sdrebear – you quote the definition, which uses the word “certain”. Then you claimed it doesn’t really mean certain. Not sure I follow you there.

Expect can also be an expected value, in probablilistic terms, which is different from those items at risk.

For example, one might consider 10% of the loans at 50-50 risk of defaulting, which results in an an expected value of 5% defaults. Powayseller is applying the expected value to the items at risk, which is incorrect, unless the risk is 100%.

[powayseller]

sduuude, peace to you!

[sdrealtor]

Duuuddde,
Save your breathe. It is obvious she is not interested in real analysis. She is only interested in furthering her own agenda of feeling she made the right decision and believing that she will buy a home in a few years at nominally 50% off the current prices. You provided a thoughtful, accurate and gentlemanly explanation to which she responded “peace to you”. Does that sound like someone interested in listening to reason?

[sdrebear]

Hey sdduuuude,

I chose not to alter the real definition (just to support my point more strongly) which did include the word "certain".

"to consider probable or certain"

Don't you leave out the other word there, which is "probable" just to support your point.

You also illustrated my real point (much better than I did actually) which is that the term the analyst (hey, I used it right!) used, "at risk" was too vague and left open the opportunity for PS (and others) to use the 100% part of that risk assessment. Was it technically correct to assume that outcome could occur? Well, yes. Is it probable? I doubt it.

It was just the fact that people were killing her on the point when on the extreme technical side of the argument, she was actually within her rights to do that (even if it is "spin").

[powayseller]

sdrealtor, I just spoke with a lady I met recently, who is a life coach, and asked her how to handle unprovoked criticism.

She told me that less intelligent people attack a person, because they lack the intelligence to debate. She suggested that I just act pleasant, so that’s what I did. It seems like good sound advice.

The Excel file comment is just ludicrous, so I didn’t even respond. Well, I do like to hear different points of view, so I would love to read your analysis. What do YOU think of the UCLA Anderson Forecast? Wasn’t your colleague there? What did HE think of it?

sduuude and sdrealtor, what do YOU guys think of Cagan’s paper in which he analyzed the impact of resetting ARMs?

[sdduuuude]

sdr – Fair enough.

[woodrow]

sdrealtor, I just spoke with a lady I met recently, who is a life coach, and asked her how to handle unprovoked criticism.

Re-read the original thread, and the 2 subsequent whine-fests you started in defense of your defenseless position that "at risk" = "expected".   You were/are being criticized b/c you spun the quote to make it appear more bearish, as you often do.  The criticism was neither personal nor unprovoked, it was an observation from serveral people who read you often and compliment your efforts for the most part.  Several of us who are obviously schooled in basic economics have tried to tell you that there is an important fundamental difference between the two terms, yet you refuse to budge.

Your quest to be right 100% of the time is amusing.  None of us are right all the time – we should all be happy to get more right than we get wrong.  Even you PS.

Have a great weekend – we'll have to agree to disagree.  I'll wear kiddie gloves when replying to your posts in the future.

 

 

 

[sdduuuude]

“unprovoked criticism”

I think you asked the wrong question of your life coach. In a way, it is provoked. You are posting to a public forum and dishing out advice. If you get it wrong, I consider it a provocation because alot of people look to you for advice.

It isn’t like you are walking down the street and some moron is lauging at your hair or telling you to get a boob job. That is the kid of unprovoked criticism your life coach is talking about.

I know you feel our criticism is as such, but it really isn’t.

Second, the people criticising you are very intelligent, all around. If I were a life coach, I would suggest that when so many smart people criticize your public comments in unison over and over again, listen and consider that they may be right.

On a more personal level, powayseller, I really think you shoot yourself in the foot when you spin these articles incorrectly. If you want to be respected, you will stop it, and more importantly stop defending it. The people here pointing out issues like this could be helping you, if only you would stop and listen and absorb the criticism.

Before dismissing it as meanness from unintelligent people, stop and think. Learn. Some of these people are smarter than you and I suspect a couple of them could have lunch with Robini and teach him a thing or two.

Lastly, I don’t necessarily criticize you to convince you to change your ways. I criticize you for two other reasons also 1) To let new readers and lurkers know this is not a “yell bubble without thinking” forum and 2) to help ensure that others reading your posts don’t believe it blindly.

People have a tendency to perceive those who talk alot as being more intelligent than those who talk less, and on this forum you talk alot. I just want to make sure the average reader out there sees the other side of your post and realize when you jumped to a conclusions.

I want others to see the housing bubble in reality, not in the (slightly) over-blown sense with which you portray it. If you can’t handle people picking apart your every word, this is the wrong place for you.

I think Cagan’s paper is not clear and thus not very useful. If you have an outdoor party coming up and you are concerned about the rain, and someone comes to you and says “you are at risk of getting rained on”. You would say “give me the CHANCE of rain, using a number” to make it more clear what they meant by “at risk.”

I think you sensed this problem so you tried to put a number to it and made a bad assumption – but I think Cagan should have put that number in, not you.

To bring it back to the topic of this thread:

Be careful saying “peace” then implying I am less intelligent in a back-handed sort of way. That is exactly the kind of personal slam that you were trying to avoid in the title of this thread, isn’t it?

Your life coach probably would have suggested you leave that bit out of the post because it wasn’t “being nice”. I mean – the life coach says “be nice” and you do exactly what she told you not to do and say we lack the intelligence to debate. Amazing.

In summary – when we hammer on powayseller, lets stick to the analysis and avoid the snide remarks. But by all means – hammer away.

[powayseller]

This thread was about using logic to debate, and not criticizing the person. I am disappointed that some people prefer to criticize the person instead of using logic. I did a poor job of getting my message across.

Ultimately, our response says everything about our intelligence and character.

[Author]

Posts