>a croire qu'il faut prendre le sens oppose des sujets d'etudes de
>l'epoque. Ici, publie en 96, une etude qui demontre que les returns
>value sont meilleurs que les growths. aujourd'hui, on connait la perf
>des growths sur les annees qui ont suivis!
>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa*pers....stract_id=2358
un autre lien sur ce timing (value/growth) que je trouve sympa.
concerne Julian Robertson plus precisement. c'est a se demander si
c'est la competence ou la chance qui fait la reputation!
http://www.tradersmagazine.com/magazine.cfm?id=2121
Robertston's famed Tiger organization started with just $8 million in
assets under management. It eventually accumulated $20 billion. But its
style of hedge fund investing - value at a time of growth/Internet
mania - went out of favor.
...............
Still, before Robertson reached this difficult point, there were many
years when his funds were small enough to roll up monster returns.
Robertson, in these salad years, was the toast of the financial press.
And there were lots of fat years. Robertson beat the S&P 14 out 20
years over the 1980-1999 period. However, in its last two years, 1998
and 1999, he was uncharacteristically beaten in two consecutive years
by the S&P. Here was something that - in Tiger's heyday - few would
have believed could happen as the Tigers sizzled through the 1980s and
most of the 1990s.