I could care less about this guy's track record--that's not up for debate. Buuuuuuuut, if he's gonna try and rip on me here because it's nice and safe being anonymous, his credibility drops to 0 because he's not willingly to publicly debate me. He can give any excuse he wants--and I'm sure he will--but the simple fact of the matter is that if you believe in something, you'll stop at nothing to tell your POV to anybody who will listen. I've got 14 million users on MSN who are ready to hear what my haters want to say, but nobody will step up? Not very surprising, but it's nice to show that my haters are all little children, unwilling to backup their accusations in public
I believe 100% that you are a lying, deceitful, snake oil salesman. Now, re-read my statement Timmy and make your decision...
I admit that he does seem to be getting more than his share of grief here, but your answer is not a response to my remark about you. Wouldn't it be interesting if the author used TA, relied on trends and used charts? After all, these are all things that you believe are essentially bogus, based on your many posts in the various related threads. What irony that would be, eh?
No accusations, Only important Fact is Performance: Pathetic 1.5% annual return since Fund inception (3/2003-6/2007). Sykes failed his investors by underperforming money market rates, with much higher risk. That is the Bottom Line!!
We all understand my fund hasn't done very well BUT that doesn't mean there aren't important lessons and entertainment to be drawn from it. Show me Niedehoffer's and LTCM's overall numbers--they're def. going to be in the -20 to -30% annual return area. BUT that doesn't mean that the books associated with their funds weren't great. Case closed.
Finally!!!! It only took a dozen different threads and hundreds of pages for you to tell the truth and state what your detractors were pointing out without trying to spin it into something positive (i.e.- "The #1 ranked short-biased fund"). Thank you for acknowledging the facts.
You and I know that 1.5% annual return since 2003 with much more risk is horrible. Maybe you can now start being honest about your poor performance when promoting your book.
Hahaha still the #1 short bias fund 2003-2006, but compared to other funds and other strategies, my fund, as well as my strategy, hasn't done very well. Wooohoooooo--how about this for putting a positive spin on it--the bigger the losses, the bigger the lessons!
What's the use of being #1 among losing funds? If you say that you are #1 short bias fund and it still lost, then it means all other short bias funds are even bigger losers and even more useless. And I am considering 1,5% yearly gain a loss. Why? Simply because risk-free investments earn more than this. Also consider inflation. Then what's the point other than trying to sell as many books as possible. If you want to give people entertainment (with your book) then you should talk to the broad audience, not to traders that care about performance and making money, not about entertainment books.