put me down as suspicious [...] that the difference between Madoff's and the other investment implosions we've seen over recent months will turn out to be so clearly one of kind rather than degree.
It's only because Madoff made such blunt descriptions of his own scam that he's being covered as a crook. Had he done the more usual thing and insisted on obfuscation to the bitter end, the media would be putting him in the same category as all the rest. "It's all so complicated, impossible to get your head around, blah blah blah."
The problem with funds is that there is no useful way to analyse them. Past performance bears very little relation to future performance, so picking a fund tends to depend on liking the manager. Very touch to make impartial judgements.
Cialdini's "Influence" is a great work. It's great at exposing a lot of sales techniques, but I had this weird feeling while reading it that it could be used as an instruction manual. Haven't read his new one yet, but it looks like an instruction manual. http://www.amazon.com/Yes-Scientifically-Proven-Ways-Persuas...
Yes, it's such a great book that I feel compelled to order the new one, despite the fact that Cialdini appears to have farmed out the writing to others and to have descended into self-parody in the video on that Amazon page.
Nice writing. Here's a very clever turn of phrase that both summarizes the article while tying in the opening:
"If you invest with anyone who claims never to lose money, reports amazingly smooth returns, will not explain his strategy, refuses to disclose basic information or discuss potential risks, you're not sophisticated. You're an oxymoron."
The accounts managed by Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC reported gains of roughly 1% a month like clockwork, with nary a loss, for two decades. Why did that freakishly smooth return not set off alarms among current and prospective investors?
I wonder, is anyone running Benford's Law [1] analysis on whatever meager reported details are available from other firms like Madoff's?
You can still work with the rest of the digits in the percentage (eg 1.1% should be more likely than 1.9%), I imagine the problem isn't the numbers themselves but the lack of a decent sized sample. You only get 12 numbers for a year and that's plenty of time to lose your shirt to a con man who has your money!
put me down as suspicious [...] that the difference between Madoff's and the other investment implosions we've seen over recent months will turn out to be so clearly one of kind rather than degree.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/248051.php
It's only because Madoff made such blunt descriptions of his own scam that he's being covered as a crook. Had he done the more usual thing and insisted on obfuscation to the bitter end, the media would be putting him in the same category as all the rest. "It's all so complicated, impossible to get your head around, blah blah blah."