Another famed value investor closing his fund. David Winters.

[dozu888]

Oh please, let me give you a valuable clue. Whatever you've thought about "volume"... FUGGETABOUTIT! (I know that's not conventional wisdom and had to swallow... true, nonetheless.)

VOLUME MEANS NOTHING... when it comes to deciding whether or not to make a play. Volume matters only as to "how big of a play you can make without impacting the market too much".... that is the "handle".

There is ZERO diff in Price TA between any of the financial markets. Volatility is a separate consideration.

disagree.

volume means nothing to YOU... but means something to other pair of eyes that may read something out of it.

equities and commodities are 2 different animals and the price actions are different... equities are net long for the entire market, so the upward drift and sell-down actions are quite different... commodities are net flat, so there is really no up vs. down, if that makes sense.

 

[Scataphagos]

Oh please, let me give you a valuable clue. Whatever you've thought about "volume"... FUGGETABOUTIT! (I know that's not conventional wisdom and had to swallow... true, nonetheless.) I have 3 "pet peeves" about trading notions. Volume is one of them.

VOLUME MEANS NOTHING... when it comes to deciding whether or not to make a play. Volume matters only as to "how big of a play you can make without impacting the market too much".... that is the "handle".

There is ZERO diff in Price TA between any of the financial markets. Volatility is a separate consideration.

I chuckle at how quiet the board gets when I righteously disdain volume considerations. It's like I just revealed "there's no Santa Claus".

 

[murray t turtle]

There's a difference in price TA between equities and commodity futures.

%%
Amen+ agree. Including but not limited to; some stocks pay dividends/have earnings.And i seldom sees such a big trend or even trend change, measured by % ,in stocks on Wednesday. Wed moves happen all the time in oil. While its true, math is math in any market -that does not change my 2 points above.

 

[ironchef]

Value investing is not dead. Last time I look, Buffett is doing OK.

 

[themickey]

I chuckle at how quiet the board gets when I righteously disdain volume considerations. It's like I just revealed "there's no Santa Claus".

Slight sidetrack off topic, but when you mention volume has no relevence (not agreeing or disagreeing with this atm) but some ET'ers say that fundamentals have no relevence, they trade pure TA charts.
My experience, I originally was 100% TA, then I went head over heels into FA, then gave that up back to TA 100%, now after many years I find FA is very helpful for fine tuning.
There are imo huge advantages with FA, the downside if you can call it that is it requires a bit of reading research but for active investors it certainly pays off with a higher financial return.

 

[Volker Knapp]

“About four years ago, we noticed that value investing had stopped working the way it had always worked,” Winters told Barron’s a year ago (2017)

I keep on wondering where he got this opinion from. Where is the research? Where are the results. "Always" is a strong word, I would be happy to see the past 30 years of research (backtest).

 

[newwurldmn]

Value investing is great if you don’t have to deal with redemptions and short term marked to market.

You buy stuff that earns your large increases in book value. Sooner or later the market catches up.

But it’s hard when you are solely judged on if the market has caught up to the fundamentals.

 

[srinir]

Value investing is not dead. Last time I look, Buffett is doing OK.

Buffet returns more loaded towards both value and quality stocks. Quality more so than value.

From portfolio visualizer