Peter Brandt is a pure chartist. 40% pa compounded over decades...audited.
Edward O. Thorp on charting
- Thread starter truetype
- Start date
Peter Brandt is a pure chartist. 40% pa compounded over decades...audited.
Peter Brandt
That is remarkable. In commodities, no less, eliminating the question of if he has access to insider info.
But, I believe statisticians would call his performance an outlier. Arch Cra$ford ran the most accurate forecasting letter for years based on astrology. Does this make astrology valid?
Same thing for Mr. Brandt despite his incredible performance.
surf
surf
Last edited:
.
maybe there's more than one way to make money in the markets ?
with and without charts ..
Last edited:
what does the bmt method use for its predictive value?
BMT is an actionable stock picking methodology as well as a market philosophy.
What we are doing in the surf report with index futures is completely different animal.
BMT is a mixture of metrics that drive price AKA price drivers. Among these are The fundamentals that are most critical, using derivatives to buy at a price reflecting value, and macro to micro economic analysis to screen for winners. The methodology has consistently ranked me within the top 8% of all 10,000 plus tracked market experts.
Last edited:
LOL @ Peter Brandt's autisitic (ET)ards
I expect them to be fully triggered after this...since Brandt appears to be the poster child for TA they all cling to
(I can see both sides of the argument. I have no skin in the game. The truth is in-between)
Do any of these retarded, over-sensitive autisitic, aspie idiots do math/statistics/probability?
What happened to "trust but verify"?
Can't believe so many naive, gullible grown-ass middle aged/old farts somehow suspend disbelief bc some guy wrote a book & has some internet fame.. LOL
Like groupies dickriding Justin Bieber. LOL
See excel chart below
Claims to have 42% return (compounded) over 40 yrs
Assumptions: Tax 20% (rough effective tax rate)
1/ Even if starting with $100,000 40 yrs ago, by now after 40 yrs of COMPOUNDING he'd be worth post-tax 'only' $10 BILLION.(based on 20% tax annually) ...if what he claims is true
Does the fucker look like he's worth:
- $10 billion (40 yrs compounded) or even
- $594 million (30 yrs compounded) or even
- $33 million (20 yrs compounded)
???
Bwahahaha
YET he is selling $400 subscriptions...
Even if the compound rate is lower at 30% pa or so the numbers are still massive.
And we all know that with compounding being backend loaded, the huge annual returns ($ value) are in the back years ie now
YET he is selling $400 subscriptions bc he's so alturistic...
INCONGRUENCY
2/ Just proves the double standard of ET
Love to unconditionally dickride their hedge fund trading idols.
Yet an independent trader claiming the same thing on ET would be laughed at, ridiculed & driven away. LOL
If this guy was on ET claiming an track record of 42% compounded over 40 yrs (or even 30 yrs or 20 yrs...) we all know the song by now:
"If he's making all that money, why's he selling subs?"
"If they can't trade...they write books...they sell subs..."
Yet this guy gets a free pass
3/ Even Bernie Madoff had enough sense to claim a return of 'only' 10% pa over 20 yrs or so
LOL
Look, I don't doubt that Brandt might have success here & there.
But to claim 40%+ pa return compounded over 20 or 30 or 40 yrs is incredulous
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"
4/ Almost 100% certain he gets more from subs than trading income.
The Risk free income is no joke:
$800,000 pa = $400 * 2000 subscribers
No doubt it's more than his trading income
5/ FFS he's a 10 lot trader - at most.
Nothing wrong with that but it's not how you get to millions or 10's of millions or 100 million
And don't tell me that he's "winding down" & "taking it easy"
Common sense anyone?
You need to do big size to grow your account into the huge bucks.
There's no escaping that.
I expect them to be fully triggered after this...since Brandt appears to be the poster child for TA they all cling to
(I can see both sides of the argument. I have no skin in the game. The truth is in-between)
Do any of these retarded, over-sensitive autisitic, aspie idiots do math/statistics/probability?
What happened to "trust but verify"?
Can't believe so many naive, gullible grown-ass middle aged/old farts somehow suspend disbelief bc some guy wrote a book & has some internet fame.. LOL
Like groupies dickriding Justin Bieber. LOL
See excel chart below
Claims to have 42% return (compounded) over 40 yrs
Assumptions: Tax 20% (rough effective tax rate)
1/ Even if starting with $100,000 40 yrs ago, by now after 40 yrs of COMPOUNDING he'd be worth post-tax 'only' $10 BILLION.(based on 20% tax annually) ...if what he claims is true
Does the fucker look like he's worth:
- $10 billion (40 yrs compounded) or even
- $594 million (30 yrs compounded) or even
- $33 million (20 yrs compounded)
???
Bwahahaha
YET he is selling $400 subscriptions...
Even if the compound rate is lower at 30% pa or so the numbers are still massive.
And we all know that with compounding being backend loaded, the huge annual returns ($ value) are in the back years ie now
YET he is selling $400 subscriptions bc he's so alturistic...
INCONGRUENCY
2/ Just proves the double standard of ET
Love to unconditionally dickride their hedge fund trading idols.
Yet an independent trader claiming the same thing on ET would be laughed at, ridiculed & driven away. LOL
If this guy was on ET claiming an track record of 42% compounded over 40 yrs (or even 30 yrs or 20 yrs...) we all know the song by now:
"If he's making all that money, why's he selling subs?"
"If they can't trade...they write books...they sell subs..."
Yet this guy gets a free pass
3/ Even Bernie Madoff had enough sense to claim a return of 'only' 10% pa over 20 yrs or so
LOL
Look, I don't doubt that Brandt might have success here & there.
But to claim 40%+ pa return compounded over 20 or 30 or 40 yrs is incredulous
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"
4/ Almost 100% certain he gets more from subs than trading income.
The Risk free income is no joke:
$800,000 pa = $400 * 2000 subscribers
No doubt it's more than his trading income
5/ FFS he's a 10 lot trader - at most.
Nothing wrong with that but it's not how you get to millions or 10's of millions or 100 million
And don't tell me that he's "winding down" & "taking it easy"
Common sense anyone?
You need to do big size to grow your account into the huge bucks.
There's no escaping that.
Whoa, that's harsh! I was giving him the benefit of the doubt with my outlier comments--
Rather than thinking outside the box, like i have been crucified for on elite since i proved TA is mostly nonsense, many of these folks appear to have so much mental energy devoted to the myth that if they just stare long enough at charts profitable repeating patterns will occur to break them out of the slave wage working world. When someone questions this, the true believers pile on to discredit and support the flawed faith. It is sad and even more sad in this age of accessible massive computing power that these myths still exist.
surf
so you are then saying fundamentals and value have predictive price powers?