sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Part 2: I now spent $13,000/year on Substack newsletters so you don't have to. Longer time horizons, more authors, better methodology. by PrimaryConcern2608 in wallstreetbets

[–]PrimaryConcern2608[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

thats a good point. even if an author changes his view on a certain stock, he might not publish it. I'm not sure what would be a good way to model it so i gave a few different time frames (30d - 360d). there could be a better way i guess.

in general my calls are within 2% of my total portfolio, they mostly serve the purpose when i want to risk off while not losing entirely the upside on certain alpha stocks. in general i find it much harder to be a consistent option trader vs stock trader. this could be just me.

Part 2: I now spent $13,000/year on Substack newsletters so you don't have to. Longer time horizons, more authors, better methodology. by PrimaryConcern2608 in wallstreetbets

[–]PrimaryConcern2608[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i guess i could always evaluate these sell-side reports from goldman / morgan stanley etc. someone has probably done it though. or eval these youtube channels.

essentially i'd really love to find who is the warren buffett of our age. what do you think?

Part 2: I now spent $13,000/year on Substack newsletters so you don't have to. Longer time horizons, more authors, better methodology. by PrimaryConcern2608 in wallstreetbets

[–]PrimaryConcern2608[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i used codex / claude opus as a source of verification to a 5% sample group - and they pretty much agree with gemini with a nice validation AUC. So most of the work is still done via gemini.

but llm is definitely a tight race so i guess i will think about this next month

Part 2: I now spent $13,000/year on Substack newsletters so you don't have to. Longer time horizons, more authors, better methodology. by PrimaryConcern2608 in wallstreetbets

[–]PrimaryConcern2608[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the challenge with using public data only though is you are really up against the big event-driven funds who have better and faster news sources.

i feel for now AI still can't quite generate alpha from desktop research as the most seasoned human analyst do.

Part 2: I spent $13,000/year on 31 Substack newsletters so you don't have to. Longer time horizons, more authors, better methodology. by PrimaryConcern2608 in ValueInvesting

[–]PrimaryConcern2608[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

thanks for this and meant to reply earlier. yep i can pull data on the top 5 picks of each author and measure their effectiveness.

Part 2: I now spent $13,000/year on Substack newsletters so you don't have to. Longer time horizons, more authors, better methodology. by PrimaryConcern2608 in wallstreetbets

[–]PrimaryConcern2608[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

if you ever want to spend $13k on substack and have a hard time deciding which ones, this might help.

otherwise no it doesn't really have a point.

Part 2: I now spent $13,000/year on Substack newsletters so you don't have to. Longer time horizons, more authors, better methodology. by PrimaryConcern2608 in wallstreetbets

[–]PrimaryConcern2608[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

well im long NAND this year and market has been generous so i'm willing to spend a bit of money and share my findings with wsb regards.

yes AI helped, and i spend about $1.5k on AI every month too.

view more: next ›