Thank you. I really appreciated this comment. Why?
When I was writing those pages I was thinking that, maybe, they were too detailed. What were the risks? The opportunities?
Often I wonder if the rigid logic I am trying to find in the data makes sense to you, my subscribers.
Am I exaggerating? Should I be a little more relaxed about how the world works? Why do I try to find logic and explain everything in terms of lead/lags? In terms of cause of effect? Looking only at the graphs of the most recent data?
I look at this information because I do not want to be confused by generalized clichés found on any financial page of a daily newspaper. I am trying to resist to be overcome by the emotion of the moment. I find refuge in a quantitative world dominated only by logic.
Does it make sense? I do not know. What I know is that in writing the last issue, especially pages 5, 6, and 7, my mind was trying to seriously understand the facts. What was really happening? Were we at an important turning point?
Then I challenged myself. What if I were wrong? And my mind wandered again looking at all possible angles.
The strategist in me tried to sort it all out in alternative scenarios that could be used as investment guidelines.
“Will my readers understand what I am trying to say and why?” “Will they find it useful in managing their money?” I kept on thinking and writing about the issues I saw in front of me.
For this reason I was very pleased when I received that particular e-mail. The subscriber understood what I was trying to do. I was trying to lay on the table a thought process. I am very grateful you found it helpful.
(This Observations appeared in the issue of 7/14/2003 of The Peter Dag Portfolio.)
No comments:
Post a Comment