Talk:Contrarian investing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject. |
| Stub | rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale |
| Low | rated as Low-importance on the assessment scale |
I removed the phrase that was saying that contrarians had missed most of the rise from WWII. It is not true since the fact that this long rise was punctured by crashes, corrections and consolidations that keep widespread pessimism alive most of the time.
I remove the part that contrarian were against market trend and put that they were against crowd view. It's a commun error to think that contrarians bet on reversal of the trend all the way up. Most of the time, the crowd turn bullish near the end of the trend.
I added a little more detail about how contrarians capitalize on market overreaction, as opposed to simply betting blindly against the market trend. In fact, the contrarian often profits from overall trends by investing in assets that have been temporarily overlooked.
Contents |
[edit] The Links Should Be Changed
The links at the end of this page don't make any sense to me. Individualism has little to do with contrarianism. Noam Chomsky is certainly controversial, but I don't think he's considered a contrarian. I don't know anything about Barry Sussman, but his wikipedia page suggests he's notable for fraud, not for contrarian investing. Also, the external link strikes me as advertising. Kyle J Moore 02:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] From the owner of one of the sites in the links
I own quitecontrarian.com. I also contributed a decent amount of the content to this page about a year ago (although the only individuals I discussed were Buffett and Graham). I included the link at that time. Since my site focuses on contrarian investing, I thought the link was appropriate. However, I got a notice saying it was reported as spam and removed. Now I certainly wasn't trying to spam - my site has a single adsense block, but isn't really commercial in nature. It's just a perfectly respectable blog. Articles from my site have been published by Forbes, the Huffington Post, Seeking Alpha, and Yahoo Finance, to name a few. I honestly believed the writing there to be of genuine value to someone interested in this topic.
Anyway, I'm surprised to see that the link is still there, as I thought it had been removed a year ago, and I most certainly did not replace it. But now my site is showing up on spammer report pages, which I don't think is fair, all things considered.
I'm more than happy to remove the link, if desired. I'm wondering now if there's any way to have myself removed from those monitor lists.
24.5.175.148 (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Dreman
Should David Dreman have so much prominence here? The link to his Forbes column doesn't illuminate the topic. And judging by the article titles, he's hardly a contrarian.--80.6.163.58 20:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- In studying this type of investing I find all arrows eventually point to Dreman, at least when the context is picking US stocks. If you pick up any book on contrarian investing it's likely to talk about Dreman and his books (but not vice versa). He wouldn't be as prominent a reference for value investing, where names like Graham, Dodd, Buffett, Fama/French are more important. This is Dreman's niche though. Heck his boat is supposedly called the contrarian!
- While any one of his Forbes columns doesn't explain the technique, reading many of them gives a sense of how he identifies these opportunities; also unlike the book & his journal the columns are web-accessible. I think it could be helpful to list other notable contrarians, but I don't know of any that have been so consistent throughout a career or written so much about it.
- Disclosures: I am a professional investor who uses contrarian strategies. I have no affiliation whatsoever with Dreman, his money management firm or the mutual funds he manages, other than having a dog-eared copy of his book that I first read many years ago.Tb in sf 06:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg
Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 11:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
