So, they tried a whole bunch of things, and even with the benefit of that lookforward bias, their final strategy still underperformed the S&P? Color me unimpressed.<p>Edit: I looked at their site and it's clear that their business model is just to gather assets to charge fees on. Which is why they've developed strategies like Inverse Cramer, Pelosi Tracker, WallStreetBets -- these strategies don't have any alpha, they're just designed to catch the eye of retail traders.<p>Also this scumbaggery, from their website:<p>"$70M+
Assets Committed*"<p>Then way at the bottom:<p>"* = "Assets committed" refers to captured user behavior in attempted investments and not to assets being actively managed."
Is there any reason to believe that Jim Cramer (or the inverse of Jim Cramer) would do particularly well in the stock market?<p>I imagine following a cat picking random stocks works about as well.
<a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/01/14/169326326/housecat-beats-investors-in-stock-market-challenge" rel="nofollow">https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/01/14/169326326/hous...</a>
For taking a position against another growth stock hype luminary, there exists an inverse Cathie Wood index you can trade: an ETF with the ticker SARK (“short ARK”). It has done quite well since its inception last year.
The idea of an inverse cramer index assumes that cramer is always telling the "wrong" thing - that is, his predictions are inversely correlated with the truth (or outcome).<p>That's not what cramer's predictions are though - his predictions are likely not far off from a random flip of the coin. So an inverse is likely to perform just as well (or poorly) as the real prediction!
Very interesting and Quantbase looks neat (as well as the other investing strategies you link to: Pelosi Tracker, leveraged long run investing, etc).<p>Is there a case for this as an actual investment or primarily novelty?