Mark Hulbert from Marketwatch. He's been preaching for gawd how long, strikes me as a blowhard, always trying to make predictions, always attempting to create clickbait to his newsletter. Irritating turkey or is he one of God's gifts sent to the unwashed? https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fasten-your-seat-belt-october-is-almost-here-2018-09-25
Hulbert has TONS of data and experience. I didn't know he made predictions himself. Seems he's saying, "be ready for October volatility, but don't expect it to start a bear market". Worthy of making a note, I think. I understand youth has little respect for age and wisdom. (Unlike me.. I always thought my lowly educated grandfather had a lot on the ball and was wise in the ways of the world.) Nevertheless, he's been around a lonnnng time. You usually don't survive such duration without doing at least modestly well. Hulbert is kind of like being from the Yogi Berra school of, "You can observe a lot just by watching".
several market guys located around this location "chapel hill" and he references ned davis materials, whom is a forever bear. i been around a long time first i have heard of him myself but then again i'm a futures guy not a stock trader. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hulbert
What does this mean from the wiki article...? ...In contrast, he claims real investors are "...likely to make more money ... by following strategies that are statistically inferior ... but which are psychologically superior..." because the investor will follow their chosen advisor newsletter rigorously.
I met him about 8 years ago at an investors conference where he was giving a presentation. He seemed like a very straight guy. He tracks the performance of investor advisory newsletters, similar to what Morningstar does for mutual funds and Barclay's does for hedge funds and CTA's. He takes it a step further by developing and publishing sentiment indicators from the performance data and advisor recommendations. Sort of like a glorified put/call ratio I haven't kept up with him since stock advisors are not an area of interest for me, but I respected his business model and how he presented his service. He didn't overstate himself or hold himself up as a guru or anything like that.
Guessing he means that it's better to find an approach that matches your personality, so that you can follow it consistently... vs. trying to use an approach that is statistically best/better, but doesn't match your personality, so you won't be able to follow it consistently/rigorously. Of course that assumes that even the statistically inferior approach still has an edge... and that "following advisor newsletters" can provide valid edges in the first place. (Maybe that last part was what you were referring to, lol.)