Hey Dexter...you're really quite a yacker of absolutely nothing!
Like many others, the only time you open your mouth is to change your feet!
Stay in school...get into college...read alot , don't take gut couses and maybe, just maybe, soneday you;ll learn how to write and communicate with hopefully interesting thoughts. For the time being, do not pick up a pen or attempt to write ( other than to your folks or girlfriend about any of your thoughts. You need much more schooling and maybe that will come in time....Maybe
To me, what really matters is who gets it right. The direction of stocks has proven over time that the majority of “MBA” analyst predictions were wrong…which essentially recognizes that more knowledgeable analysts are not better at predicting price movements…their business degrees did not make them more omniscient.
In fact, the only Wall-street analyst who got it right does not even have a business degree. Yes, she has a degree, but she was educated on topics that have nothing to do with finance. I am in no way agreeing with Dexter here, he obviously made fun of her too…just look a few posts back…the point is, too much knowledge is not necessarily a good thing…and please note: there is a big difference between knowledge vs. information!
To me, the analyst with access to more information is at an advantage and better at predicting stock price movements. When most other analysts overanalyzed the data they had, creating “knowledgeable” models, based on “normally distributed” information; she was clued in to more industry news and could fundamentally analyze them better.
I would pay an analyst to go out there and get me all the information they can vs. overanalyzing few data…(this might, hence forth, avoid making a prediction just a few days after you get the job and reversing your prediction just a few days later…jeez).
Moreover, financial companies that take the time to access more industry information will, more often than not, outperform companies who only rely on “educated” computer-based analyses.