I don't have any stats but I have been thinking on this past several months, look at S&P500 Sectors, find all the sectors that 4 of the last 5 years they were either at the bottom or one step from the bottom, as these sectors seem to right after become either at highest or one step from highest returns for year. Make like 10 steps based on returns/losses. It is sort of like "Dogs of the Dow" except I am seeing that if 4 of 5 years on the floor, CEO's get canned and employees get layed off and whatever product starts being sold. But I would wait for basing then could buy at bottoms where risk is lowest, and can hedge and also sell calls while waiting for it to start going up, help offset losses on the Long Puts.
Is that your argument? You know about insurance because you are a director of a vague Hamilton based firm instead of actually backing up what you say RE: buffet's tax schemes and insurance investment process.
typically the longer the quant view the bigger the degree of error. that is why it is so much easier to predict with great accuracy short term movement.
True, but errors compound faster the shorter your trades, and leverage is more commonly used in short term trading. So precision has to be greater. Also the very short trading intervals cannot accommodate very much volume so your trading timeframe must evolve as your trading capital grows.
My 'argument' is: I'm actually involved in the insurance business at a high level, whereas I have no idea about your bona fides.
On an anonymous forum you are using your anonymous resume as credibility. My statement came from the book: "warren buffet: American capitalist" by lowenstein. He discusses how warren got insurance companies so cheap.
It's real and verifiable by a journalist who is known for writing with good research unlike your snufagopolis credentials.