Knowledge that Transforms

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

The problem of what to teach in investments courses can hardly have any one answerbecause teachers, students, levels, and purposes are too diverse. Even subject matter is debatable these days when one must make up his mind whether gold and antiques should be covered along with stocks and bonds, bills, and deposits. Thus what I offer here is one man's viewpoint, what seems most plausible to me out of 20 years' experience in brokerage and teaching: an opinion–no more, no less.

The paper represents a remarkable effort to push outward the limits of static ratio analysis for the purpose of judging commercial loan applications. I found the task of reviewing this paper by Professor Altman and his colleagues from CESA (Center for Management Education) a very useful experience because it gave me an opportunity to reacquaint myself with an area of finance to which I had paid very little attention for some time. Hopefully, these comments are still useful despite my lack of recent experience.

Donald G. Simonson, Comment: The Predictive Content of some Leading Economic Indicators for Future Stock Prices, The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Mar., 1974), pp. 259-261

William Gibson has presented a useful analysis of the Administration's proposals for financial reform, and I have no difficulty concluding with him that they should be passed. But, I find myself in some disagreement with him on a number of matters of interpretation.

The authors, Hodges and Schaefer, of the preceding paper [2], taking up where my own article [3] left off, have contributed to a better understanding of the geometric mean index of stock price relatives. Their basic point is that, if in any practical situation a portfolio were managed according to a policy of periodic reallocation, the wealth relative of the portfolio would not be approximated by the geometric index. This is demonstrated through simulation, using randomly generated price sequences as well as empirical data. In addition, they have presented a verbal characterization of the hypothetical portfolio policy whose wealth relative is measured by the mth-order power mean of price relatives discussed in my paper. This policy, as I had stated, is not an intuitively simple one like “maintain equal dollar amounts at all times” or “buy and hold.”