CLICK HERE to join the discussion now!
A few days ago, I asked our readers a very important question: How important is past performance to you when selecting an adviser or investment analyst?
The answers posted on my personal blog are extremely enlightening:
A handful of readers — like William P., David R. and others — say that track record is less important to them than the analyst’s overall strategy.
But by a long, long shot, the majority of our readers place great importance on an analyst’s past performance …
Don S. says, “VERIFIABLE past performance is extremely important.”
Lee N. agrees: “Do not invest without proven advisor track record to support the investment.”
Thanks, Don and Lee! Joy H. seems to agree with you, saying, “Performance is #1 because it equals risk management!”
Gloria L., says, “Very, very important. If you have not produced in the past, what about the future?”
Now, I need your help again — with today’s question:
How LONG must an analyst’s track record be for you to have confidence in it? Is a one-year record long enough? Do you need to see two years of profitable recommendations? Three years? More?
Just click this link to jump over to my personal blog and let me know what you think.
Good luck and God bless!
Martin
{ 194 comments… read them below or add one }
I would think at a minimaum – I want a 5 year track record.
Thanks,
Bob
I don’t have a specific timeline, but performance through up,down and sideways markets are most telling.
Chuck Hughes comes to mind.
Past year, even the novice investors could have made money with stocks recovering from the bottom. It would be impressive to see positive track record when the markets were bottoming out in 2008.
A five year history of consistently beating their benchmark would quickly elimiinate most guros.
Hello Martin,
I would like to see performance results for at least 5 yrs.
Thanks, Evy
A minimum of 5 years.
five or more. when I buy stock myself I review the chrat ( earing, spilt ) for five or more years,
to see volatily, growth etc.
Through at least one full bear and bull market cycle, preferably more than one.
I prefer nothing less than 5 years.
10 years or more – preferrable.
If analyst provided accurate forecast during past 5 years – that would imply credibility for me.
Return on investments should be above average in any given year and across 3 year term, 5 year term and 10 year term.
I believe you should be able to see data for ten years or more to see responses to different market conditions. Not sure they will ever be the same but history does seem to show different paterns repeat themselves. I realize this is a long period but some trends last a few years.
The longer the track record, probably the better. But, an equally or maybe more important question for now is: HOW IS HIS PERFORMANCE in recognizing and properly reacting to the more unusual, artificially manipulated situations we are facing today?
Well Martin, it’s rather simple. If I find an analyst who had a good 1-year track record, then find another with a good 2-year track record, I’ll switch. Then if I find a 3-year … you get the idea.
But I honestly would prefer someone with at least 5 years myself.
I think less than three years could easily be due to random guessing. (After all, some people guess Powerball numbers correctly!) More than three years, and it begins to look like a pattern.
The longer the track record, the better . . . for two reasons:
1) Some advisors do very well in good times, a few do well in bad times. I like to see consistency.
2) Many (most) advisors show their “track record” by publishing a relatively short-term report, generally a very favorable one, that was taken out of context. I may be a little more skeptical than most readers because I’m a statistician.
Dwight Gill
It’s not a matter of time as much as having shown ability to perform in both up and down markets. Must be able to pick up “real” trends at a very early point. No hysteria and false starts please or its cheaper to do all the hard work yourself!!
At least 5 but 10 years would be better. Would want proven track record thru highs and lows of markets.
I would say that an analyst needs a good track record of at least one year to be taken seriously.
Hi everyone;
I feel an advisor should have a track record of 10 to 50 years behind them for me to trust my finances and my Mothers finances with them.
Thank you
Sandra Shluzas
more than 10 years and plenty of gray hairs!
I believe it is important to look at an advisor’s record not just for a specific time period but during different periods of market performance. If an advisor is consistently outperforming unmanaged indexes, I would say that advisor is worth a look. What is there investment philosophy? Does their Investment Policy Statement allow them to use hedging strategies, options, or a heavy cash position if needed in very volatile markets in order to protect principle? Have they adequately reviewed a clients total financial picture including exposure to deferred taxes, risk tolerance, and income needs to properly suggest specific products? Have they been through a cyclical bear market? Do they understand the value of insurance products and life insurance in a clients portfolio? Have they said something like ” the market always comes back”? Run! Okay, sorry, I had to add that one. If they can answer these types of questions to a clients satisfaction, the advisor is worth working with. Hope this helps.
Robert B. Scott
A track record of 2 to 3 years should be sufficient enough. I would also take into consideration an advisors ability to adapt to the changes of the times & market.
In today’s world, long enough to have demonstrated alertness, knowledge, flexibility and courage to act when faced with the huge market swings successfully (i.e. capital preservation).
I think you want your financial advisior to have as much gray hair as you can find. There’s no substitute for seeing it all. Look at Irving. Nobody can say there were there anymore. It took me a while to appreciate the seasoned judgement of my father in law. He’d been around the block.
Best Regards,
Bill
3 years is best because it shows how an analyist has done in different types of market. But even two or one year is not bad at all. It is really dishonest when an ad only talks/shows profitable trades and does not talk about the *COMPLETE* track record. And 99% percent of the services only show their profitable trades, they never tell you about the complete record.
Minimum of 5 years, and with lots of due diligence on part of the investor, as we have seen investment reports can modified to point of complete deception. Earning a clients trust is something I see as a huge hurdle….
Thanks Martin
To be meaningful, a track record needs to include at least one bull and one bear market, so about 10 years as a minimum.
In this volitle marketplace adaptability is paramount. An entire performance history involving different market conditions would indicate the flexibility of a analyst’s thinking. Out of the box thinking is a requirement to suceed in today’s world. I know many analysts who just don’t think about all the unconventional and controvesial economic conditions going on in the world. A personal belief system drives them not objectivity. Previous success over a cherry picked time period doesn’t tell me anything except the person knows how to market their prodcut. I like to see how a person thinks and reacts to many varibles and is still consistently successful.
The number years performance is not the key factor. What is most important is how the advisor has performed in rising or falling markets. In essence, how does the advisor perform in a good or bad economy. Performance cannot be determined over a short period.
I think in this troubling time three years minimum is needed
Frankly, regardless of the expertise of any analyst, the market today is in virgin territory as far as predicting or recommending any particular stock purchase. No one really knows what to do in the face of an economy that is in serious trouble and government that has become reckless and untrustworthy.
Ultimately, hopefully, we will see once again in the far future a stock market that is predictable. However, that time is none too soon and unless one is dealing with a great deal of money to invest in day trading, ’tis better to adopt a “wait and see” attitude.
I would like to see a one, three, five and ten year track record for comparison.
Obviously, the longer the better. 3-5 years would be great for me.
I believe a minimum of three years track record should be considered.
Considering the market conditions of the past 10 years, I posed the same question to a financial adviser friend of mine. His response was over the past year; up 34%; over the past 11 years up 1-2% total return. The answer to this question will vary depending on the snap shot of the time. Probably a good way is to show this info. is a past year by year results for the past 5 years. The other big question is how do we really get a transparent view of all of the investment accts. that have been managed by this mgr. and not just their selected accts.
Being completely ignorant I would require at least 20 years verifiable experience, good results in good times do not indicate experience to me.
As to how long a track record should be, I would like several to many years record. Markets are bull, bear, up, down and sideways, so a trading record must show it can succeed in all environments not just a bull market where you pick the best investments to gradually appreciate. Also track records should be honest. I have seen many advertised track records that are great, only to find later that they are not solid for the entire time period, but rather sections of a good period are picked out as an example and not indicative of their entire trading performance. Trading success or potential and past profitability is ever as good as advertised.
I think I would only consult an advisor who has a ten-year track record.
18 to 36 mos. to show consistancy.
I would expect that the track record of at least five years is necessary to assess the advisor’s performance over a range of market conditions. I would go back farther as data is available. Having one or two bad years over a ten year period would not be bad.
3-5 years with possibly a narrative – especially if they had a period of bad numbers. Again an analyst knowing why they had an off period hopefully indicates they would not be prone to make that mistake again.
preferably 10 years or more,with no major snafus and the ability to adjust to changing conditions. The reasoning should make sense and the statistical sources reliable. You qualify on all counts and are very trustworthy. jerome
Past performance is important. But, how does one get a good indication of past performance. But—Most analysts and advisors are crafty and cover themselves so they can hav glowing reports regardless of how the market goes. Before I went to Weiss, I signed up for an advisory from a guy who claimed to predict the meltdown and actually wrote a book on it. I signed up near the bottom of the market. All the way up, he said essentially that the market was being manipulated up. Everytime the market went down for a couple of days, it was the start of another meltdown. If it went up, it was being manipulated. He said all kinds of weasel words and lost me a lot of money. Now, he says he predicted the runup and even though he was preaching doom all the way up. After losing a boatload of money, I switched to Weiss. So far, I am extremely happy I did. The point is that you cannot get honest data on any advisory, even if you do diligent research. It is amazing now that there are all kinds of analysts claiming they called the down turn and called the market bottom within a couple of days of it happening. It is buyer beware. If you find a honest and reputable advisor and analyst, then stick with them. I hope to be with Weiss for a long time.
a least 10 years of achievement, but it is so much more complex than just that. Communication,
attentiveness, thorough understanding of client, his objectives, responsibilities. Counciling him
on risks, management of same. Protection from loss.
At least 3 years in a broad base of investment instruments ie US stocks
bonds mutual funds FX emerging markets commodities options
reits and MLPs
Go read Hulbert’s Financial Digest and understand what it represents.
It depends on how complex and unorthodox the investments are. If it’s simply investing in developed economy equities, then I’d say two to three years. Anyone can get lucky or unlucky inside of a single year.
If the investments are of an unusual or highly risky nature, then I’d want to know more about cycles within that area of investment and the time frame within which the analyst said returns would be forthcoming. Analysts of unorthodox kinds of investments might require a longer time frame.
Dr. Weiss,
For long term recommendations, it’s comforting to know the analyst has personally seen a series of down years. However, the aging ones shouldn’t live on old axioms alone and be dismissive of more recent history and cycle evidence for advising short and medium term action.
Robert L.
I need to see an advisor lose money and run an economic cycle (oscillations are moving faster in last 20 years). 7-8 years positive, and 2-3 years break-even or lose less than 8%. Up years should have some 20% gains and many 8-15% gains. I worked a book in the 80’s and now trade my own with your service and 3 others, plus IBD and Barron’s. Churned books are losers, and turnover ratio is an important factor in who I listen to when investing. My current problem is my wive’s account is only optioned to 10 mutual funds, and all are BULL, and none with Dividend as a basis. All I can do is sit out this cycle with the options allowed, and a few dollars in TIPS.
I want a twenty-year record. We will always have business cycles, and the analyst has to go through at least one of them to prove his/her salt.
I would like to see at least 5 years performance. One year doesn’t tell the whole tale.
Two to three years and then” Trust but verify”. Then hope
Three years performance provides an opportunity to test the advisors track record in up and dpwn markets. Very few advisors can show a solid 3-year profit.
Only a few bond funds can show a 3-year positive record. to perform well a fund or advisor must be able to go long and short , based on which way the wind is blowing. The wind changes direction in a major way at least twice per year.
I need to know as much history as possible, but atleast 5 years is nice. A good test now is how you did in 2008 and how you did in March of 09 and forward. This gives you performance in both thpes of extreme market conditions. A breakeven or positive return in 2008 seems to imply being short in the market. Strategies that use shorting effectively appeal to me in these uncertain times.
Since the rules seem to keep changing, excellent performance in the last year is vital. Performance in the past 2-3 years is a plus.
It’s not just “confidence” versus “no-confidence” or a defined amount of time. Confidence grows as a feeling of assurance. The longer (more) you experience positive recomendations, the more confidence you have in the analyst (the more assurance you believe the analyst will be right more than wrong).
Measuring in years may be too narrow. I measure a track record of correctly identifying major market turns BEFORE they happened.
If you correctly identified an event, I’m listening. If you had 2, I will listen and pay attention………..3 I will take notes and compare to others……..4 I am a fan and a follower.
All the information must also be in accordance with what I think.
One year good performance seems to me enough
Minerbi
2 years is sufficient because it encompasses major market shifts. Most of the services that I have paid dearly for have not which has been an expensive education. Good on fundamentals/bad on trading (too early Klaus!) or bad on fundamentals/good on trading but not knowing when to sell!! Overriding fundamentals combined with shorter term trades have worked for me. I have achieved 90.2% total gains from 2004 thru 2009.
How long must the track record-of an analyst-be before I trust it?
In the past I have bought advice from a couple of analysts. I made some money from both .
Unfortunately, in a short interval, I seemd to be beseached with ‘opportunities’ to buy some of their more expensive advice (and it seemed like the advice I had paid for had diminished. This left me with the opinion that while the early advice was good-it didn’t last long).
A couple of days ago, I signed up for your entry level offering. While I certainly will remain objective to your offerings, I will better track your recommendations vs. my experience from them better than I have previously done.
Obviously I wouldn’t have signed up if I hadn’t been impressed by what I’ve experienced so far
from ‘Uncommon Wisdom’.
Looking forward to the future,
don erickson
Analyst should have at least 8 – 10 years of experience. Based on the current market conditions the analyst should have a positive track record of at the least 3 years
at least 10 yrs or better
If the analyst does not have a proven track record over at least two market cycles I would view any predictions with caution. Presently, this would mean a time period reaching into the time prior to the Tech Wreck. Nobody can be 100% right all the time and the devil is in the details of timing. Therefore, open mind and adaptability to the changing market conditions are absolutely necessary. Both perma-bulls and chronic contrarians will be right, given enough time. The question is what happens before that and analysts and their followers stuck in one mind-set are sooner or later going to have a nasty surprise.
Martin,
I think you really need at least 5 years and, better still, 10 years. Looking at just one year or even 2 means the person could have simply been lucky or unlucky. Moreover, perhaps their strategy was great for a 1 or 2 year time frame but not worth its salt for the longer term. Who needs to work with a short-term “Flash in the Pan” for the long-term.
You want to see how an analyst performs through “thick & thin” or as Warren Buffet says “When the Tide Goes out.” You want to see how he or she can maneuver and react to a changing environment. In my opinion, that requires looking at performance over at least 5 years and, better still, 10 years.
Martin, I have subscribed to several of your publications and services in the past. I became
reticent or should I say leary of the recommendations given when I lost money more than gaining. I would be interested in subscribing again if each member or affiliate of your organization
would demonstrate their ability to pick winning investments by posting their track record for all to see over at least the past three years or preferably for as long as they have been with your organization. Us long term subscribers have gotten used to the posts in your newsletters that
look at the past and say “if you had invested in such-and-such an investment, you would have had X% gains”. We can all look at the past and say that. Hindsight does not make a good investment. What would make a significant difference to me and I am sure many other investors like myself would be a long verifiable track record. I hope this comment assists you in making such a decision.
3 years with at least 5 years trading experence.
The longer the track record, the better. Almost anyone can show a good record when everything is getting lifted on a rising tide, but in times like these when the market is difficult I want someone who has experience and knows how to practice good risk management.
Hi Martin:
Yes, I think past performance is of great importance. If you did not perform well in the past how much confidence can I have in your future calls? But I do not measure this history in years but in cycles. Did you beat the up markets and was versitle and nimble to switch out of the down markets and go to alternative markets like precious metals or foreign markets or short a market? My opinion is that its never enough to just do better than a down market – that still looses money.
Vince
I would like to see 10 years
I look at an up market of maybe 2-3 yrs but more important how did they do in a tough or down market. Were they able to sustain the portfolio or improve it.
A minimum of 2-3 years, and here’s why: Although a stellar 1 year record could reflect true skill, it could also be attributable to a good measure of pure luck. Two years may imply skill at work, yet in the scheme of things, two years is a relatively short time frame. Given the current environment, a proven 3 year track record just might indicate some real ability (plus luck!) to maneuver favorably in today’s very volatile market.
Even 6 months will give me a feeling about how well I might do with somebody. I don’t care so much about the number of right picks as I care about direction and followthrough. It is no good if I get a recommendation, it looks like it works, but the analyst recommends it to be sold for a small gain instead of staying with the trend of that pick, industry or group.
I want an “investing veteran”, who has been through both peaceful & volatile markets, who understands economic conditions & the ramnifications to investments they cause. The 2000 downturn needed veterans with experience post WWII. The most recent downturn (& which is still unfolding) needed a Depression Era veteran.
HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF. A veteran can spot it coming.
as many years as available: choosing a financial consultant is similar to hiring an employee: one wants to know as much as possible about him (her) and be able to figure out what the main risk factors may be.
Track record sometimes does not match present results. I am in a currency trading group with the leader having a purported excellent track record. We trade strictly on his recommendations. To date I am negative over 1000%, so track record depends on current market force variability. Track record is not near as important as current results. Also, some advisers are just too expensive for small investors, as with small invested amounts by the time the subscription is up it is almost impossible to regain the fee and be in a positive position. It takes money to make money but the fee makes it hard at times.
Martin,
I do not know how long you have to follow an analysis however, I do know that after a while they get cold. ie making recommendations that no longer work. I was using a news letter for several years and recommending them to my friends. They changed several of their writers and I started to lose money big time. I no longer use that company. This is one of the major reasons I do not buy into long term contracts with business news letter.
Bill
The longer the analyst has success the better his track record. He should have been successful through not only good periods of time , but also bad periods of time to know that he lived through tough times as well as bad times . He should have a minimum of 10 years with a good track record.
If a mutual fund changes managers then I am very cautious with that fund and do not want the ‘new guy’ to learn on my money. The same applies to an analyst track record. I would suggest that two reportable yrs is the minimum and the longer the better.
Until the current market debacle, I would have said 1-2 full market cycles. With the tumult of the sovereign debt crises and resulting problems, I’d say not only is experience of 1-2 full market cycles insufficient, an analyst should be a student of financial history, modern and ancient, as well. The nature of the advice determines what length track record I want, too. If, as Larry Edelson does, an analyst recommends using options as part of an investment strategy, I want to him to say talk about when his strategy last worked in a similar turbulent period, that he’s studied planned entry points, exit points, or any fancy strategies.
Nobody can live long enough to cover every set of economic conditions, but good analysts can draw from historical cycles and political circumstances.
I need to see at least 3 years of performance
Hulbert says 5 years minimum track record is essential, 10 years much more reliable. I fully agree with him, but I would add that by 15 years most advisers seem to retire, sell the business or drop out of sight.
3+ years. Doing well in bull markets doesn’t mean much, doing well in bear markets may mean you’re a great “contrarian,” but doing well in volatile markets and producing consistent gains over time, not necessarily HUGE gains, but positive results a majority of the time gets my attention. Lists that show all of “my BIG predictions” but don’t show any of my big losses aren’t very impressive. A solid track record over several years is.
Ideally the analyst has seen a ‘whole economic cycle’.(However long one decides that should be !!) And if too young, at least has an understanding of and an ability to refer to, HISTORY. That’s why I so respect your references to your Dad’s expereiences !!! We can all hit a winning bet, at random, but one swallow does not make the summer.
I feel a track record must be a minimum of 5 years of profitable recommendations, but I’d really like to see 10 or more years.
I believe that it is several years. The analyst must forsee the future changes most of the time. Elliott Wave has accomlished this.
Martin,
I think five years should be average for an analyst’s record. The most important thing is for the Analyst to warn or advise his investment ( subscription customers) news letter readers about any dangers or severe market corrections before it happens. During the 2008 market fall most all Fund Managers lost money for their clients, some as high 60%. After the market hit bottom we had Analysts coming out of the woodwork pushing investment letters/internet sites that they were the first ones to predict the Housing Bust and the huge market correction. So, I think at least five years and also his/her record during any market corrections.
I also believe that Dr, Weiss has also done this
I personally think it should be three or more years. Ten would be better still.
Thank You
Ken Robey
My track record target is a least 5 years, better 10 years, if available.
One year says nothing – really nothing. And even long track records are no guarantee for the future. Always use the big picture analysis, when considering a “new” investment.
And that big picture analysis is provided by Weiss Research – very well.
Thank you Martin & team!
two or three years is not good enough. Through good and bad times is more inportant.
For me to have any confidence in an analyst, I would want at minimum the past 5 yrs, and 10 would be great
Dear Martin,
Going back some 70+ years to anchor my thoughts on “investment guidance”. My family was fortunate to have trusted the old “Fidelity Philadelphia Trust Co.” who guided us thru the depression never missing a monthly payment. Over the years we had many discussions on how best to direct new money investments…In retrospect it was not too amazing that the focus areas were ALWAYS ….Financial integrity of the Co. the board and the Co. officers, Steady dividend pmt. pref. over extended time periods, The pos. of the Co. among its’ peers, The Co’s standing among its’ employees. No matter who you choose to advise on investment matters IF they follow these guidelines your chances of loosing money are almost “Zilch”
I know, many people are going to say “What about the TREND(S) etc. BUT when you are fortunate enough to find one of these 24ct. Companies you will find they are WAY ahead in future projections otherwise how would you explain their top position for 60-70 years ??
Martin, i know this is a seemingly poor answer to the ques. That problem exists because of the change in morality when taken in the context of investing–FAR too many investment decisions are made with a mindset of “what can we get away with and safely indemnify the investor”. I don’t believe most losses are intentional , just stupid, and they accelerate from there kinda’ like shoveling you know what against the tide. I’m sounding like a “ramblin’ old man” (which i am) so i’ll close–Have followed your service for some time and thoroughly enjoy it–wish i could have know your Dad we could have enjoyed the stories of some of the Wall St. thieves of “Yesteryear”.
Good health and Good fortune, Sincerely,
George D. Rittenhouse
I would like to see past recommendations through a complete economic cycle, if possible. Otherwise. three or four years. However, I follow some analyst’s, such as Larry Edelson, because I like their approach to current and anticipated conditions.
Hi Martin…in response to your most recent query…..a several year track record providing winning recommendations overal several market cycles (short/long) is what I am looking for. Personally for me I have followed and monitored numerous analysts …..and over the last couple of years I have learned to trust Larry Edelson’s overall market guidance and insight the most as supported by some time validated research tools and models. I would like to see a reasonable cost swing trade recommendation service tied to Larry’s research and “uncommon wisdom”. This could be a trading based enhancement to Larry’s Real Wealth service. …that could help alot of us with market timing . …to include a better understanding of how daily or weekly financial news could impact trading within the context of a trend. Hope this helps.
Duane Redic
Manassas, Va.
Martin-
I am a financial planner and I struggle with this question regularly. Past performance is important as well as strategy. However, it is important to have a benchmark by which to judge performance. Some of my peers frequently give performance numbers in conversations that I find hard to believe. Some omit benchmarks. Some talk about their successes, not their failures. Typical stuff, but it makes it hard for people to pick a financial planner. I have the same problem when it comes to choosing financial newsletters. I usually pick those newsletters whose arguments hold water. That is one reason I picked yours.
Tony
My preferance is for five years but I frequently do not know the experience level of the person that actually made the analysis. I don’t even know the experience level of the person expressing the opinion. Does Martin or someone review opinions before they are made public or are all your people considered fully qualified in their individual areas of “expertise”
QUESTION: How LONG must an analyst’s track record be for you to have confidence in it? Is a one-year record long enough? Do you need to see two years of profitable recommendations? Three years? More?
EXAMPLES:
Don S. says, “VERIFIABLE past performance is extremely important.”
Lee N. agrees: “Do not invest without proven advisor track record to support the investment.”
Thanks, Don and Lee! Joy H. seems to agree with you, saying, “Performance is #1 because it equals risk management!”
Gloria L., says, “Very, very important. If you have not produced in the past, what about the future?”
Answer: I find the question as you put it too narrow, and the answers in the examples you quote troublesome.
First take the “troublesome” answers: “VERIFIABLE“ and “proven“ are problem words in the field of financial analysis. My problem is how do you get that performance record? It is too difficult to accurately track. One sure way is to experience it. That’s not very satisfying and it can get expensive. All the other ways pretty much fall into a process of asking someone you trust. You might just as well ask the adviser himself.
Now Gloria L. is getting close to my take on the broader question. I will paraphrase: How about the past? What about the future?
My Answer: Capitalism is obviously in Crisis. The uncertainty is so intense it glows in the dark. Where is the “volatility” that should accompany that state of crisis?
I have not seen the acronym PPT (Plunge Protection Team) on any Business or Financial page in the last decade. I’m pretty sure it still exists because it can be turned on or off at the whim of the Fed, and it is a powerful tool for protecting wealth, and the latter has been the obvious obsession of the current administration since it took office. They seem to be trying to “corner the whole market at once“, whatever that might mean.
Thus the question of the track record of a financial analyst is, and has been since the current crisis began, irrelevant. I’m sitting this out.
Thomas Lague
Dear Mr. Weiss,
The longer the track record the better. Good work breeds success, while hoping to get lucky as we are now taught to do in public schools is cause for disaster!
Thanks for asking. – Al Koppel.
10 or more years through ups and downs
IF A FINANCIAL ADVISER HAS A GOOD TRACK RECORD FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS UNDER THIS MARKET CONDITIONS,THIS WOULD BE A GOOD RECOMENDATION.
DEAR MARTIN WEISS
I HAVE JOINNED YOUR ORGINZATION FOR PAST FEW YRS AND DO ENJOY THE MATARIELS YOU ARE FORWADEING. I WISH I COULD OF SPENT SOMETIMES ONE AND ONE OR EVEN THRU E- MAIL AND COULD OF ASKED SPECIFIC QUESTION
OVER ALL BEST WISHES AND KEEP UP GREAT JOB
SINCERELY,
WILLIAM ALKHASIAN
One year is not enough. I think a track record, if available, should be at least 3 years – I would prefer 4 or 5 years to include a good range of market cycles.
You have a great service! Thank you.
Even your very own people are having a difficult time producing a return this year. I have tried resource windfall trader for about six months without much gain. So in the end is it the broker or the market?
I am very new to this and would find comfort in knowing the analyst has a 5 year track record that would indicate he or she is a person of integrity and deligent and finding outhe best investment opportunities to share with the clients.
Track Record V. V. V. Important. How else Could financial success be judged!
To me, the real questions are “how many years of steady, reliable success based
on unbiased research/recommendations and straight talk (trust)”.
I’m new to this but get that from Weiss.
Martin,
A good performance record is the best. I think you do pretty well. But, the one time my husband (recently deceased) and I took your advice we lost 30 % of our meager savings. It was too bad…you mentioned investing in natural resources. So we took our savings into Global sentx and epfx (?)
we got order placed, went on two week vacation, came home and had lost it. We sold at loss, never did come back.
But you seem like a good man have your clients interest at heart.
Thanks,
Sanaura
I think a proven track record is very important when choosing a financial analyst. Three years would be a minimum in my opinion.
Five years is the minimum time I would use to evaluate an investment advisor. Anyone can have a good year or bad year, but five years seems to be sufficient to avg out the ups and downs.
I would like to see five years minimum. Ideally, double that. My largest stock holding is the USAA PM&M mutual fund. I gradually invested in it 12 – 15 years ago, adding more along the way. The fund manager is Mark Johnson, compiling an outstanding track record. I read his advise and follow yours as well. You also have a commendable record and a sane outlook on the economy and it’s problems. Yes, hard money assets have proven to be the answer. Guy L. Schottler
Dear Mr. Weiss,
As cynical as it is for me to say, I really don’t have faith in the competence of 99.9% of “investment advisors”, regardless of the length of their track record. The 2007 -to present economic collapse caught most totally by surprise, even self styled long term experts like Larry Kudlow. However, to answer your question I must that I do look for a long, proven / verifiable record. Considering no less than a 10 year track record seems very reasonable.
I began reading “alternative” financial websites and blogs back in 2001 – 2002. That is how I first came across your writtings and became aware of you on Jim Puplava’s Financial Sense University. The essays and posted opinions were certainly contrary to the Conventional Wisdom and Popular Opinion but, the reasoning was so immencely sound. And ultimately proven so correct. I have followed you and your assocciates ever since.
On a side note: I recall driving home from work one evening in the mid-fall of 2008 and listening to Bill O’Reilly on the radio (I know, I know…) His guest at the moment just happened to be you. I was absolutely appalled by the way he treated you and simply dismissed what you were explaining! His only repeated reply to what you were explaining was to say “….No one knew this was coming, not even ME!” I was shocked that he could be SO arrogant and just dismiss what you were politely and clearly explaining, and in such a rude manner! He and / or his staff clearly had not done even any superficial research into your background and track record! I considered Mr. O’Reilly nothing more then a talking head but his rude treatment of you was unforgivable.
Thank you to you and your team for ALL the hard work (deep research) and clear communication of your forecasts!
Best Regards,
Matt Murphy
gotaltitude1122@yahoo.com
I would like to see a consistant track of winning recommendations over the 4 to 5 recent years.
Showing at least 90% of the picks as profitable by correctly determining the economic trends or shifts. The quality of the recommendations . This is a tall order but I also want to see how a safety hedges were applied to minimize the potential downdrafts.
Martin, I feel that just as it takes a 7 year span of time for one to change all the outer skin layers from our bodies, it should take us 7 years to “prove” our “heading”! It might seem like a heck of a lot, but let’s not forget that “Rome wasn’t taken in one day!!!” Blessings!
A LONG track record is best. I prefer an adviser who has no hair, or grey hair. History never exactly repeats itself, but it DOES rhyme. I don’t expect any adviser to have beaten the market all the time, I just want to be assured that this isn’t his first rodeo.
I work darn hard to earn that after tax investment dollar, (also my pre-tax 401K investment dollar).
Mr. Regular Worker
My minimum would be five years. Ten years to feel more secure in my decision.
Martin,
I am still following the advise I recieve from the Weiss group. Have joined the circle.
all I can say about your track record is this: I lost over $350k in the crash following the election of 2008. In less then two years I have recovered most of the loss. Just last week we were able to buy out our mortgage of $245K. In great part due to your advisory team.
Thanks
You need to see how they do in a bull market as well as a bear market. You could make money in one market and loose it all in the other market.
The answer depends on the times.
In extrodinary times when things have been rough, a shorter record will mean more variable conditions so will be more useful than the same period of time with steady conditions.
When times are easy then it takes a longer time for the superior to distinguish themselves.
This goes for any kind of leader.
Jake
Three years, with gentle swings
I have used you and Robert Prechter for over the last 20 years for investment info. I have dabbled with others, but none give info as clearly, and for the most part accurately, as the both of you.
Frankly the length of a track record can’t be too long. Pre-depression would be good, but I don’t think that is possible. So the minimum of track record to develop my trust is more to the point. For me, a 5 year record is minimum, 10 looks a lot better of course. Many can see the road as far as the headlights extend, but to fathom the road when it is not so clear is obviously more difficult. To come out on top for longer periods, as the future becomes the past, requires many more strategies and insights as the financial climates change.
The length of the record has definitely been a factor in some of my past choices and the periods where skills of extrapolation were evident were given more weight.
A Minimum of 10 years Plus. I want to see a track record that takes in the bad times. How else can I compare a record against a group of analysts? So many analysists claim only the time they did well and ignore when they totally blew it. Besides, many analysist have a conflict of interest. Many get paid by the same employer that is hired to analyse a corporation.
We need to develope confidence over a period of time. It takes a comparison of several track records to become comfortable with each one. Its an ongoing thing
Dear Martin,To have my confidence an advisors 3 yr good record during relatively smooth going times would be interesting. I would then want to know his performance in past more trying times. His planninng for further progress on past his three year good record would have to be built upon sound existing supply/demand/sound business and founding/marketing and delivery.The ownership or purchasing of all required business facilities/ manufacturing materials and all the material and legal matters should be shown to be concidered. Is top, middle and lower managment highly trained for the tasks? If he shows no such grounding in the things he suggests, then I cannot risk my hard earned money in that empty mirage. That not Weisslike.
A successful track record length in my opinion depends on the cycle of the related area of investment. I would want an analyst to be able to anticipate the top as well as the bottom of the investment cycle. This could be as little as one or as much as twenty years or more.
I want to see a track record that spans at least one boom-bust cycle in the respective market. Anyone can be a hero in a bull market.
The longer the better – five years min, but recent record should be rated heavier like an EMA!
The longer the track record, the better; at least a five year track record is a start…
At the very least 5 years but preferably 10 years
Analyst’s that have successful track record of which stocks are best to buy and to sell based on fundamental research is far more important. I use my own stock charts indicators that show stock prices turning points to time my buying or selling.
Length of track record depends on how far out the future forecast is, and what principles the prediction is based on. Predictions based on long term fundamentals require a proven long term track record, whereas short term predictions require numerous successes based on temporal market moves.
IT REALLY DEPENDS ON OVERALL MARKET ENVIRONMENT , THERE ARE TIMES TO BE AGRESSIVE AND TIMES TO BE CONSERVATIVE INCLUDING BETTING ON THE INVERSE OPTIONS AVAILABLE , FOR ME THE IMPORTANT ISSUE IS TO BE IN THE TREND , POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE , AND INVESTED IN VALUE CO’S WITH DIVIDENDS , CASH , AND MARKET DOMINANCE AT GOOD RATIOS . WITH 2 TO 5 YEAR VISION .
You may not like to hear this.
I am getting so many email from “experts” with GREAT information about themselves and the GREAT performance (triple digit gains on markets they`ve traded and making $10,000. grow to $50,000. in a year or so) that I have become very skeptical and unbelieving. The rage now seems to be producing “actual” account statements, bank or otherwise, that “proves” past performance. Some don`t even say they are backtesting results, which we know are hypothetical. People put more credence in this kind of information than they do in the statement ” PAST PERFORMANCE DOES NOT GUARANTEE FUTURE RESULTS.
I have made purshases because their promotion was so convincing, only to find out the product`s performance was far less than expected. My last one is a FOREX robot which after a month of operation has not lost money, but has NOT gained any either after about a 100 trades. In the promotion it gained 30% in 2 weeks on a bank statement.. I can`t return it, so am just letting it run hoping it will have a “change of heart”.
NO!!!!!!! Statements about experience and past performance have NO credability on the internet. One of my favorate statements is ” the truth will prevail”. On the internet it prevails by the cyberspace promoters becoming harder to get, or simply disappearing, at your peril.
If the product is truly as promoted, GIVE it to clients to use and have them send you a copy of their trading statement with a check for a percentage of their profit until the purchase price has been paid. (I paid for my robot up front and I will NOT show it to my trader friends with it`s performance. I hoped to be proud of it when I bought it.)
I hope this is substance for your question.
BILL
By the way, I am maintaining your newsletters because I agree with your stance on the US debt and what will happen. BUT I cannot afford your subscription that will provide the investment benefit to me. My Interactive Brokers account has only about $3000. in it, and I`m retired with month to month income. It seems impossible to recover after a fall.
The analyst MUST have a good track record for a lot of years. At this point, if I know they haven’t made it through, learned from, and profited during, any of the crashes (different bubbles, commodity crashes, etc) over the past 20 years, I won’t trust them.
5-10 yrs.
To me ten to eleven years would be good because it would show how the analyst did during the dot com bomb and the mild recession after 9-11. Also it would cover the real estate and financial crises.
5-10 years would be better. Long enough to cover different types of markets. bull/bear
Weiss was way ahead of the curve in predicting the mortgage crisis. This said, his timing of the market leaves much to be desired, such as doubling down on UNG. From a long term perspective, he’s right. For a short term investor, you may be disappointed.
I’d say 20 years of successful investing with an obviously profitable trend though not each and every year.
I lost half my money in 2008 with an “advisor” who had a 30 yr. history of success for several people I know personally. When things shifted he wasn’t able to react – let investments go to the bottom. I don’t know if history matters . I’m not sure at this point. He had great history but it didn’t help at all in when the crunch was on.
Hi,
The analyst should in my opinion have at LEAST 3 years , in the particular niche market that he is reviewing-advising on…
Regards
stan
More than three, many years, the more the better.
I don’t have a finite time period. I am interested in performance relative to a benchmark through up cycles, down cycles and “sideways” cycles.
I like to see performance long enough to see both bull and bear markets.
I am most impressed with the way your firm has sent me an email every morning to discuss important macroeconomic events and how they will impact my portfolio. Before reading your columns, I felt helpless against Wall Street, and my Merrill Lynch Broker. Ever since the tech wreck of March, 2000 I dropped Merrill Lynch and have used your advice. Track record aside, the most important thing for me has been your input about what is currently happening, and how it will impact the markets. Your firm has been a champion in that area, and I’ve made a lot of money to boot. Thanks for everything.
I think the advisor should have 3 good years out of the past five.
With conditions as they are today, it;s extremely difficult to say. I just simply don”t know.
Dear Martin,
I’m a longer term investor. Consequently, the only record that attracts me is one
by an advisor that takes a core position and pretty much holds &/or adds to it.
Trading in & out, going short & long or hedging does not suit me.
Hopefully my remarks are useful. I sense that I am not your usual follower but
I do very much value your & your staff’s frequent comments.
Grateful for your contribution to us investors,
Ted.
To have credibility, an analyst’s track record should include several economic cycles. Glib commentary on today’s market action means little unless it is coming from one who has made correct calls on past market moves.
I think 10 yrs of past performance would give me a good idea of my financial advisor’s ability to manage my money safely. Ten years would include most of the ups and downs in the economy and how he performs during this timeframe will be a good illustration of his ability.
Your are doing a great job.
I just have trouble making my inertia move. It is tough to get out especially when the market begins to drop.
Their are several factors that in fluence the important observationof “time”. The time cannot be calculated by simple survival but is directly proportional to “performance” and inversely proportional by the company’s failure to consider politics,EU status, factored performance of national debt (for several “player” countries ) more important (especially those who wind-up covering the overall impact of countries that are far behind). Many are talking time as a factor of being sucessful vs getting “kicked out” of for example, the EU. It has countries I would rate as almost no “success time” though they have been a member, since the only success they had was when a stonger power “propped” them up! Does this destroy the EU teamwork philosophy? No but we have a better basis to strengthen our own success by judging time with individulized factoring (like football coaches who judge a teams record (time) but don’ignore the star players and never bet on players who have proved their incompetence!! Johann Weiss
I think that a positive tract record of 3 to 5 years in important. This gives you an idea as to how well an analysts does in both up and down markets.
Total track record time is almost irrelevant without specifying the number of selections
by the analyst. I mean, you could have 2 year record with only 1 selection! How about insisting
on 4 picks every year for 2 years? This would provide more insight into his/her stockpicking
ability.
My belief is the longer your track record the more convincing. This also proves your on the ball during good times and bad times.
Three years minimum..even then I stay on my toes and pay attention to what’s going on with the pertinent data.
At least a 15 year or much longer track record. I subscribe to, “The Safe Money Report”, its a good read. When it comes to a long term track record of getting trends right, there is only one real source, Marc Faber. He has helped me navigate these markets for almost a decade. I have done well by him. We are friends now and talk.
I am not pumping his reports or track record. I just mention someone that understands everything to come.
God bless you also Martin,
Take care, DL
I don’t think it is the number of years that deserves our confidence, it is the numerous ways the market behaves and how well an analyst does with each scenario. We are certainly experiencing the twists and turns of late and it takes a person who has expertise, foresight and a finger on the pulse to come out on top in all its variations.
Martin, I like to look at a long track record ideally five years or more, ( I have been following you many more years than that, many thanks). I look at new analyst’s records, and evaluate them, to see if it is a one off, or if there is potential substance worth looking at. Many make one or two good recommendations, and then get big headed and crash out.
More than 10 years.
HI,
At least 5 to 7 years because I need to have some hindsight on how the analysts performances materialized under changing business and financial coniditions (e.g. recession, emerging economies take off…).
Philippe
Ideally, to be able to compare analists’ performance under similar market and/or economic condditions.
Best regards
Werner
Martin,
Having been victim of a nefarious Ponzi schemer, which cost me my life’s savings,
I would propose at least 3 years of verifiable past performance – Preferrably longer!
One year or more.
I would want at least two years of a very good track record.–Marshall
For me it is a three part equation. Duration and overall performance of safety and growth are all equally important. I want to see what the analysist has done in times of significant change. Did he avoid the massive losses in 2000, and again in 2007/8? Also did he earn money during the good times. And I want to see it for his whole portfoliio. Many times I see someone tell about how they got it right a few years ago with a stock that improved 10,000% but when I look a the overall portfolio they are on par the Dow or S&P 500.
3 or more years. Trends aren’t established in shorter intervals
3 or more years. Trends aren’t established in shorter time.
Several years! I realize they will not make a profit all the time but several years gives you a good idea of what type of investments are being made and average out the years.
I should qualify that it’s my belief good investments may take patience and a good understanding of the fundamentals. The problem is that the market seems to trade on anything but the fundamentals given interventions and black boxes. On a short term basis, I don’t think anyone can get it perfect. I would trust the Weiss group over 90 percent of the talking heads out there.
l think in this market that a 3 year record should be enough.
track records more than 5 years
better: 1o years
three year record is good
I believe the longer the track record the better.
Minimum of ten years, including rising and collapsing markets, varied economic conditions. Consistent solid recommendations regardless of market conditions.
Don’t you think that performance was the number one criteria that people were using with Madoff and Stanford. If all people were to sit down with and get to know their financial advisor, they would be so much better off. Performance is well down the list of those that I talk to. They are much more concerned with a strategy that is appropriate for their goals and objectives. There is no one strategy that is good for everyone. Far from it. Good luck to those of you who think performance is everything. Good luck to those who believe some of these outrageous performance records are verifiable in honest terms.
I tend to trust Weiss exclusively. I also use Motley Fool, in general i make my own decisions. I would have appreciated a buy signal on Dow Chemical @ $6.00 last year as it went right back to > $30.00, I could have used the profit on that. Sincerely Terry Donceel
A 3 – 10 year track record provides a measuring tool for performance. But remember, if it appears to good to be true, it typically is. Such as the performance of Bernie Madoff. I have heard of people who literally lost everything, simply everything and he had more than a 10 year track record showing fabulous performances.
I want to see at least five (5) years. This allows me to see how well he/she is watching what is going on. I also question who the advisor listens to to gets their information. Although Mr. Weiss has several years of experience and learnings from his father, not everyone has that wealth of knowledge at their fingertips. Also how candid is the prospective advisor – if he is straight forward in their comments, I don’t believe they will be straight forward in recommendations.
The track record of performance should be at least ten years in duration
I think Dr. Martin Weiss has an excellent track record of performance over the past ten or more years and he has been right on the major issues and trends in the market. In the fall of 2000, while the Nasdak was trading around 4000, he told all his subscribers that this market would go to 2800 or lower.
5 years at least!
I think at least 3 years and 5 would be better. That would give more time to evaluate performance in up and down markets
Martin:
I agree with most others that about 5 years is good, and the thing I really look for is the background. Martin, when you came on, you had the very best of mentors. That was your Dad, Irving Weiss. Soon as I read what he had to say, I knew he was there where things started. And he has taught you more than all the other gurus will ever have about investing in an unstable economy. You got a lot more ‘amperage’ of knowledge than most of the others. And thank you.
Brian Riordan
I appreciate your commentary on events both past and present and how they could influence the markets. This takes more than ten (10) years.
Record is very important to me. I want to see at least 5 years, preferably much more, and through different market conditions. I like Warren Buffet’s record.
Performance and logic are important ingredients to selecting a financial service. A record of performance is certainly the most important in both good and bad economic times. I look at these characteristics in any service I subscribe to.
I think 3 years minimum performance with “above market” results.
Length of experience is relative to the overall type market during the experience. For instance when the market is “all” bull or “all” bear it is easier to show a good record v. the mix we have experienced during the last couple years.
Relative to overall type market. All bull or bear v. mixed bag.
Three to five years of a positive track record however the recent record of one year is more important than five years ago.
Three to five years.
I prefer a 5 yr. track record but will settle for a 3 yr. track record. I certainly want to see a stock that has preformed better than its’ peers through the “Credit Crisis” DLB
Dr Weiss,
I was introduced to a distortion in thr employment numbers this year and have not seen you even comment on the distortion in your recent article about the jobs “created” by the current administration. I know a person who is a seasonal worker (works as an usher at a sports stadium.) The organization hiring this person passed out paperwork and asked any of the staff that was not hired in a full time capacity outside their work at the stadium to complete the paperwork. In essence the paperwork made them newly hired employees for the new season, and as such made the hiring organization elegible for the tax credit for Social Security. How many sports teams are there? How many “Part Time” employees do they employ as ushers, ticket takers, food service , etc.? All of those employees who are not employed full time just became new hire statistics for this administration, and they aren’t paying their full sharwe into a nearly bankrupt social security system.
To me it makes sense that since China pulled its investments in the Dollar. That we should increase our import taxes and stop importing from China. Start producing again which will create jobs and put americans back to work. Where is the slogan “Buy Americian”?
I pulled my money out of the treasury and now I’m looking at going gold. Do you think investing in diamonds, stone, etc. is also a good way to invest right now?
What would happen if americans begain to invest heavily in the us dollar. Would the price rise because of the increaed demand? I don’t know much about how the market works and may make this a dumb question.