I appreciate all of the new data. As far as pure volume of data nothing comes close to what Dan presented.
Before that we had the Designer models only (with some anecdotal stories). BTW Marc’s median model is performing at the benchmark he selected (with serious survivorship bias). Likewise, Yuval’s median model is performing at his benchmark. The average designer is doing worse.
Another fact that has been proven beyond any doubt whatsoever by the Designer Models is that, for the average user, in-sample sim results are negatively correlated with out-of-sample port results. For most situations, sims cannot be used to support a strategy. Not in isolation anyway.
That is the objective evidence we had up until now.
Surely there must have been other hard evidence upon which to make a decision about where to place your retirement funds? Well, P123 has a pop-up ad that suggests you can earn $1,000,000 at P123.
I totally agree that no one should have to show their brokerage account. But no one forced P123 to make a pop-up ad a very large part of the argument to join P123, either.
One could even say that a pop-up ad was THE SOLE BASIS for P123’s argument to join until now considering the Designer Model’s performance.
Now, I have new data that probably changes my opinion. I was probably going to leave in April before I got some new data in this thread. That was uncertain but it is absolutely true that I have no funded P123 models to share in this thread.
If I stay it will be largely because of the volume of data that Dan presented. BTW, he did that with no one asking him to and he obviously has an understanding of what constitutes real evidence. He has no pop-up ad that he might want to consider documenting.
IMHO, there is nothing wrong if anyone wants to see documentation of what has been almost the sole argument for joining P123 up until now. No one forced P123 to use a pop-up ad. Considering that they decided to go with the ad the only surprising thing is that they did not present some evidence for that a long time ago.
And some profession sites might have chosen to present something like Azouz did with volatility metrics and a Sharpe ratio if they were going to advertise a portfolio in a pop-up ad.
IMHO, it would not have to involve personal accounts but P123 might consider continuing to make a serious (professional) case for joining (and staying at) P123 as Dan has done in this thread. I do understand that when they were started, some thought the designer models would serve that purpose.
While not a shining example of how it should be, Zacks does make an attempt to validate its claims about Zacks rank without trying to imply they should not have to do so. But it would be true: They don’t have to do it. I don’t think there would be a Zacks today if that had been their approach, however. Certainly, I would not have visited their site more than once (if at all). As it is, Zack have gotten some money from me over the years. Largely based on some documented out-of-sample evidence.
Uh… Maybe that is an exaggeration. Zacks also markets to professionals and maybe the professionals funding Zacks operation don’t want to see any objective evidence that using Zacks’ data has the potential to improve their bottom line. Could be just me but I do not think so.
Best,
Jim