Thank you for the article. Sorry to seem skeptical but would you have a link to the research Weseed did? I'd like to see the details of their research and all the stocks that were included/excluded.
I see for example that Research in Motion was included in the Top Brands portfolio. In 2000, RIM was still quite unknown outside the business world (its market cap was around 4-5 billion and market share was way smaller) and not what I would call a top brand at the time. Palm was much better known at that time, and we can't see if it was included or not as a top 100 brand.
The time frame studied is quite small (9 years) and included two periods of serious stock declines (2001 and 2008), where value stocks (normally top brands are generally categorized as value) with strong balance sheets fared better than growth stocks.
But indeed this research might be promising. A longer time horizon (or other short horizon research starting at different dates) and presenting results on a risk-adjusted basis would enhance the value of this research.
Bottom line is research needs to be incredibly exhaustive, properly conducted and unbiased before suggesting people take investment action upon it. In this article, we do not have the details, so we cannot judge its value.
Top Brand Names and Stock Returns [View article]
Thank you for the article. Sorry to seem skeptical but would you have a link to the research Weseed did? I'd like to see the details of their research and all the stocks that were included/excluded.
I see for example that Research in Motion was included in the Top Brands portfolio. In 2000, RIM was still quite unknown outside the business world (its market cap was around 4-5 billion and market share was way smaller) and not what I would call a top brand at the time. Palm was much better known at that time, and we can't see if it was included or not as a top 100 brand.
The time frame studied is quite small (9 years) and included two periods of serious stock declines (2001 and 2008), where value stocks (normally top brands are generally categorized as value) with strong balance sheets fared better than growth stocks.
But indeed this research might be promising. A longer time horizon (or other short horizon research starting at different dates) and presenting results on a risk-adjusted basis would enhance the value of this research.
Bottom line is research needs to be incredibly exhaustive, properly conducted and unbiased before suggesting people take investment action upon it. In this article, we do not have the details, so we cannot judge its value.
Chinese Market Annihilated - Cramer's Lightning Round (9/24/08) [View article]
I like Frontline though. Their dividends are unstable, but I'll live with that for a 23% yield...