Echo Dot countdown boutiques-francophones Introducing Fire 7 tablet, starting at $59.99 WFM Furniture Kindle Paperwhite Explore the Amazon.ca Vinyl LP Records Store sports Tools



Showing 1-10 of 19 reviews(1 star). See all 166 reviews
on September 10, 2017
Seems the author wrote this book as a stunt for either publicity or money. He does admit that he's been on Wall Street as an "investor" for the longest time. At the ending chapter (on page 379) he says "I have nothing spectacular to offer" well then why did you write this book in the first place dude?
One of the worst books I've seen on the topic of investing. AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE if you want to stay away from a pretender who's just trying to grab money from you.
The book itself is styled to read: "get rich slow, by investing in capital markets!" Do NOT believe a word these Wall Street executives have to say.
You CAN get rich faster, but you have to be in sales for that to happen. I PERSONALLY recommend Grant Cardone and his sales programs - I don't make a single penny from giving you this information, just Google him...thank me later.
One thing I've learned from reading over 25 books on financial markets, FOREX, and other topics is that you can NEVER believe what the Wall Street people have to say. They're in it to make money, their mean nature always shows itself one way or another. If you really want to invest your money, you have to learn exactly what commodities have high exchange values and then invest in them only.
You can always increase your income by selling your own product or someone else's. Learn the sales process so you can make money TODAY! NOT when you're 70 and can't even walk! That's really stupid and derelict way of thinking.
Again, 0/5 for making this a money grabbing scheme .5/5 for writing an entire book in order to try and catch my attention - STAY AWAY! I guarantee personally that you'll be happier you did!
11 Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on June 30, 2013
This book must be the worst investment book I have ever read.... I have read hundreds. For me to take the time to write this review, it's got to be really, really, really, bad. There is zero academic value to this book as it is filled with inaccuracies, popular misconceptions, personal bias, fabricated evidence to prove his points, as the author mocks every investment theory and practice that does not reflect his own personal beliefs. For example, he ridicules Technical Analysis using "made up" charts to prove how the technique does not work? Is he serious? Can't take 5 minute to find a real chart on a real stock? He often shows his total ignorance on various topics and relies on his personal prejudice to explain his views. The bulk of the book consists of this ludicrous material... and at the end we get some common place advice. Just not worth the read to get there.

There are way better books out there... this is just too personal to be of use to any serious investor.
11 Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on June 22, 2009
Sum up the whole book it's saying you can't beat the market because it's efficient and don't even try it. Just buy index fund. It's call the EMT (Efficient Market Theory), the author said you can't find bargain.

According to Markiel, Benjamin Graham is wrong (he got rich twice by buying bargain), Warren Buffett doesn't exists, Walter Schloss can not make 20%+ for 40+ years and still going on....

Through out the history of finance you can find examples like say this:

Consider the case of Saucony shoes. In mid-2003, Saucony had
a market capitalization of $88 million, with net working capital of
$70 million and a beautiful headquarters building worth $10 million.
After netting out these assets, the entire company was selling for
$8 million (because one owns the assets when one buys the company).
At the time, Saucony was generating approximately $133 million in
annual sales, $7.3 million in earnings, and $13 million in free cash
' ow. And one could buy all this'in effect'for $8 million!
So, clearly, Saucony's assets were available at a bargain price. Con-
verse had recently been purchased by Nike (NKE) for one-and-a-half
times sales plus the assumption of debt. That formula would equate
to at least $200 million for Saucony, not including its $80 million in
tangible assets. During early 2004, Saucony rewarded shareholders
with a special cash dividend of $26 million ($4 per share). That was
nice enough, but the true catalyst came when Saucony was acquired
at a premium price by Stride Rite (SRR) in mid-2005.

- book exert from Art and Science of Value Investing - by Kinko's founder
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on July 13, 2004
Very few fund managers, brokers or money managers can beat the market. OK, that is factual and common knowledge. Yet, the vast majority of investors entrust their stock portfolios with these poorly performing professionals instead of parking all of their investment capital in no- load index funds or ETFs. Is the market then truly efficient or are their millions of sato- masochistic investors out there that want to underperform?
In 1999, the Nasdaq market leaders traded for well over 100x p/e. It defied logic and a few shorts would have been "efficient." The market continued to rocket upwards until March, 2000 and shorts would have been death to you in 1999. A share of some company breaks out of a trading range and moves up 5% in value in 10 minutes on no news or fundamental change. This type of thing still happens. How can a market be truly efficient when there is ingrained stupidity such high levels? Consider the handicap mutual funds are strapped with: They must be at least 70% invested on the long side at all times regardless of how overvalued the equity markets are. That means mutual funds will be sloshing money in defensive industry stocks such as casinos and bottlers during a market melt down. Conversely, it means "value" stocks will be frequently trading for less than book value during boom times. In an efficient system, you have real checks and balances insuring stock prices on an equal footing with intrinsic value and not cosmetic tomfoolery.
How does investor psychology come into play? Human psychology is not efficient but it is sometimes predictable. I'm betting that whatever look Brittney wears in her next video and whatever is worn on the runways of Milan will be adopted within a few months by the hordes. The darts won't tell you that.
In 1983, a Members Only jacket and a pair of designer parachute pants would set you back maybe $150. Today, you can only find these items in a thrift store for considerably less. The lesson is that in the short term, there are all kinds of irrational trends. Over a long time span, a regression to the mean will filter out lots of follies only to be replaced by some other ridiculous fads and a few long lasting good ideas. Everybody knows that garish haute couture has a higher profit margin than the common t- shirt. I'd rather be hawking the haute couture.
There is marked inefficiency in the markets over longer time frames also. Check out the valuations on Coke and the consumer staples over the last several years and compare them with historical norms. Many stocks seem to be permanantly overvalued. And what is this fascination with historical valuations? Many investment managers are in awe of the historical valuations as if it were definitive. Frankly, the variables have changed over time and comparisons with history make less sense today.
The entire market is based on stupidity, manic emotion, misinformation and knee jerk responses. I could get into wirehouse sales tactics and conflicts of interest but I will spare you. That is not to say that it can be figured out.
Oh, and if the market were efficient it would learn from its mistakes. There were bucket shops in 1890, and there are bucket shops today. At the turn of the century, automotive stocks were doubling seemingly overnight only to later crash and burn. Fuel cell stocks were the rage a couple of years ago.
Most fuel cell stocks are now trading for a fraction of what their highs were. There is nothing new under the sun.
0Comment| 5 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on February 19, 2004
It's interesting how with each new edition, the efficiant market theory slowly morphs into value and growth investing. When the book first came out, Malkiel wrote that a monkey throwing darts can beat professional stock pickers. Well, for a couple of years the Wall Street Journal ran a series pitting stock pros against a monkey. From what I remember the monkey lost. I also remember that Malkiel ran a mutual fund which wasn't all too hot (he probably used the Wall Street Journal's monkey!). Now Malkiel recommends loading up on index funds, which by the way are loaded with blue chip stocks and are not at all chosen randomly. Save your money and buy Graham's Intelligent Investor, The Essays of Warren Buffett, and Fisher's Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on June 1, 2003
The axiom of this book seems to be that the average mutual fund performs worse then the indexes. This is clearly true. However, it is also a nonsensical statistic. The statistic used to calculate the average performance of a mutual fund includes those of fixed income funds such as bonds. These drag down the averages. Also dragging the performance down are taxes on profits and money manager salaries.
Dwell upon this: If you selected just one company in the S&P 500 that had plummeting profits and was in for obvious disaster, and did not invest in it, but invested in all the other stocks of the S&P, you have defeated the index.
The idea that an intelligent human is unable to defeat the market is ridiculous and Burton G. Malkiel can only pull the wool over the eyes of the uninformed.
On a side, unimportant note, Malkiel mispells the name of my hero Allen Iverson.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on February 15, 2003
The WORST "investing" book ever written. Random Stupidity.
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on April 27, 2002
Given that the book's basic premise has long been made obsolete by the work of Lo and MacKinley (see research from 1986 to present), as well as many other researchers, I fail to see why anyone would perpetuate what is now a myth in recommending this book.
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on February 19, 2002
Contradictions, Caveats, Ambiguities and a lot of faith
That¡¦s what you going to find in this piece of junk
I don¡¦t understand how the author can
¡§Believe even more strongly in the original thesis¡¨
(the random walk theory) after fully acknowledging all the market anomalies and inefficiency that have been discovered thirty years since he first wrote the book, he does accept the fact that market do get out of line sometime, which is clearly against the random walk theory.
May be it is because there is too much vested interest in the random walk theory to dump it away now.
Some peoples¡¥s reputation and entire careers is on the line here.
I really question the author¡¦s academic honesty.
The author is obviously not trained in any scientific discipline and has to rely on his own intuition and philosophical musing to support his arguments, although he claims it¡¦s scientific but he hasn¡¦t provide any empirical prove for the random walk theory. His treatment of the stock market crash in 87 is simply embarrassingly weak
He relies more on blind faith than science and I would rank him amongst the market technician/chartist he so despise
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on February 19, 2002
Contradictions, Caveats, Ambiguities and a lot of faith
That¡¦s what you going to find in this piece of junk
I don¡¦t understand how the author can
¡§Believe even more strongly in the original thesis¡¨
(the random walk theory) after fully acknowledging all the market anomalies and inefficiency that have been discovered thirty years since he first wrote the book, he does accept the fact that market do get out of line sometime, which is clearly against the random walk theory.
May be it is because there is too much vested interest in the random walk theory to dump it away now.
Some peoples¡¥s reputation and entire careers is on the line here.
I really question the author¡¦s academic honesty.
The author is obviously not trained in any scientific discipline and has to rely on his own intuition and philosophical musing to support his arguments, although he claims it¡¦s scientific but he hasn¡¦t provide any empirical prove for the random walk theory. His treatment of the stock market crash in 87 is simply embarrassingly weak
He relies more on blind faith than science and I would rank him amongst the market technician/chartist he so despise
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse