Originally posted by Kayaker-J Academic types and social scientists who study this sort of thing liken a belief in success for predicting future prices in most markets to "chimpanzees throwing darts at a wall chart". In many cases, I gotta go with the chimps.
Scintists rig the question so the answer serves their purpose.
Scientists want to measure perfection and then show that prediction of perfection among average participants is not possible over short time horizons. Behavioral Science cannot explain the 15% of market participants who consistently perform in the top quintile over longer time horizons - say rolling three - year periods - so it denies that they matter.
To me, movement within the top 20% is random noise, and is irrelevant. Those in the business of selecting exceptional managers, who eschew the quest for perfection, can consistently identify those top-quintile managers (by evaluating Personnel, Philosophy, and Process first, and THEN Performance), and predictively anticipate their behaviors so long as they constantly monitor the first three P's, and ruthlessly replace a manager when an element of the selection process changes.
I don't care about the difference between 80th and 99th. Give me 25 years. What's the difference between stupid success and obscene success?