(no subject)

[randomness]

Meteorologists are much more accurate much more of the time than financial pundits, but because everyone thinks they understand the weather, everyone feels like they're an expert.

The financial pundits have a great gig.

Comments

[happyfunpaul.livejournal.com]

Results/feedback is also clearer. "6 to 10 inches" predicted, "less than an inch" actual = WRONG. Every day a meteorologist gets a grade that's clear and immediate. With finance? Not so much.

Not just finance, either. Lots of professions involve judgments that are difficult to check, or at least with results so delayed that no one thinks to check. (I have a fondness for those who, for example, go back at the end of football season and check the prognosticators' accuracy at the start of the season.)

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

Well, results/feedback are extremely clear and quantifiable in finance in terms of price. If some overpaid moron in a suit tells you that gold is going to $2500 in 2009, for example, you can look back and--to use your construction--$2500 predicted, $1200 actual = WRONG.

However, my feeling is that achinhibitor has the right idea; if I know that it's going to do that, I'm not going to tell anyone, I'm just going to make a killing on it instead.

Now that I think of it, I think that's the key difference: my making weather predictions on the Weather Channel doesn't change the result, while my making stock picks on CNBC likely will. And if I am on CNBC, I'm certainly going attempt to take advantage of that and talk my book and make money.

The thing I think is amazing is that people continue to listen, when the results cost them money.