The insult here--"groupie-purchases"--suggests you understand Buffett's existence is a serious blow to your case. As you implicitly acknowledge with your hypothesis of the "announcement effect", the null hypothesis is that Buffett beat the market. It's time you hold yourself to the same standard you demand elsewhere in this thread and prove that "groupies" from 40 years ago maintaining their positions all these years account for Buffett's long term rate of return.
My case? The fact that investment managers cannot produce results has been proven over and over again. It's not my case, it is a simple fact about reality. All you need to do is review the WSJ Dartboard Contest.
In the Dartboard Contest, managers had every incentive to prove what they could do -- a success would have made them simultaneously rich and famous. They failed. Any questions?
> As you implicitly acknowledge with your hypothesis of the "announcement effect" ...
"My hypothesis?" You need to learn something about equities. The announcement effect is very well-known.
Do you suppose I wrote all these articles, and talked a bunch of economists into believing in it? For God's sake.
> ... the null hypothesis is that Buffett beat the market.
The null hypothesis is that Buffett did not beat the market based on special skills. The null hypothesis is that Buffett's performance has a pedestrian explanation -- chance. That's what the null hypothesis means.
Quote: "In statistical inference of observed data of a scientific experiment, the null hypothesis refers to a general or default position: that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or that a potential medical treatment has no effect."
I can't repair the defects in your education in a series of forum posts -- you will just have to go out and get an education on your own, like a grown-up.
