Okay guys, lets have some fun. Who is more accurate? let's see if mad money and fast money have a better winning percentage than the NY weather? You guys in? I dont watch cnbc as much anymore.
This is so dumb. Of course meteorologists will be more accurate. Their bar is at their feet and they just say the basics. TV stock pickers make claims contrary to analysts, super-computers, etc. The bar is very high. The equivalent to a meteorologist would be a stock picker going on TV and taking a stand that Microsoft has a 60% chance of closing above $29.00 on the next day. Stock pickers are paid to say things unexpected and contrary to the efficient market hypothesis. That is like asking a meteorologist to not use any high tech equipment. Anyone who believes everything a TV personality says is very naive. Most people at ET understand this.
Meteorologists and tv stocks pickers are the same. They are the voice of the "man" to sway the economy. The weatherman predicts 6 weekends of sunshine so everyone plans a picnic, gas up the boat or go on a road trip. Six weeks in a row they are wrong, don't matter, they kept the economy moving. P.s. Meterologists can lose (or not have it renewed) their license if they dispute global warming publicly.
Its just a play on the unspoken joke that only weathermen and analysts can be wrong more often than right and still keep their jobs. saying "this is dumb", is like saying slapstick is dumb. If you don't like it don't watch it, and don't post. l8r