Size17
02-18-2009, 11:29 AM
Per the exam, I have an idea of what to take from this note.
Non-exam related however, this particular reading was a bit hard to swallow. It just felt like there were a few holes in the logic.
I think to validate the position, the author should have done another set of analysis from another point in time. Say the S&P 500 as of 1970 (random year). Take the holdings at that time and hod them for 30 years and see if they outperform the index. Maybe not quite the same idea the author wanted, but is this not the extension of his logic?
Also does this suffer from time-period bias? Would this article had worked if it were written during one of the bubbles?
Or what about other indices?
Non-exam related however, this particular reading was a bit hard to swallow. It just felt like there were a few holes in the logic.
I think to validate the position, the author should have done another set of analysis from another point in time. Say the S&P 500 as of 1970 (random year). Take the holdings at that time and hod them for 30 years and see if they outperform the index. Maybe not quite the same idea the author wanted, but is this not the extension of his logic?
Also does this suffer from time-period bias? Would this article had worked if it were written during one of the bubbles?
Or what about other indices?