![]() In all those years, not a single coin has been damaged by these archivally safe coin flips. Since 1980, millions of SAFLIPs have been purchased and used by collectors, dealers and museums to safely store coins. We also provided acid and sulfur free identification cards that could be inserted in one of the pockets. Later, SAFLIP was improved to make it easier to fold and to make it airtight if a collector welded the flip pocket shut with a heat sealer. We invented a pure MYLAR holder, the SAFLIP copyrighted in 1980. Collectors would then have an alternative to the dangerous vinyl holders that were ruining so many coins. began developing an inert, museum quality double pocket coin flip. This is why museums don't use vinyl of any kind, because museums know that there is no such thing as safe vinyl. The chemicals that can bleed out of the vinyl, and the hydrogen chloride gas that the vinyl emits, are corrosive to coins, causing sticky green slime, cloudy appearance, and microscopic pitting of the coins surfaces. These PVC flips are available in a soft or hard version, and both types are dangerous for storing coins. That would be a worthwhile study.Saflips Inert Double Pocket Coin Flips - 2" x 2"( 50MM x 50MM) - Pack of 50Ī Most of the double pocket coin flips sold today are made of vinyl, the common name of polyvinyl chloride. If the fund manager’s ROI isn’t better than the average random portfolio’s ROI then we can say that fund manager is clearly not anything of a stock picking expert. Then take the average performance of these randomly generated portfolios over the last 10 years, and compare it to the fund managers. So by that same leap of logic the 300 random college kids are as good at playing hockey as those 300 NHL hockey players right?Īn actual useful study would be if we ran a computer simulation to follow the same fund mandates that a particular fund manager has (ie maintain a certain percentage of equities, not to invest too highly in certain areas, etc) and select funds that comply with this at random say 1000 times over. Say we take a sample of 300 NHL hockey players, and construct a graph of how many of them selected at random to figure out how many years each of them has performed in the top 50% of the League in terms of points in each of the last 10 years, guess what we get? A freaking Bell curve that looks identical to this. You could do the same thing with professional athletes. To then liken that to a coin toss as a negative is idiotic. If you take a random sample from any population, there is a 50-50 chance that any particular one of them is in the top 50% of performance. You are tracking two things that have 50-50 odds against each other, and then making a correlation that doesn’t exist. Did you notice that in both cases they created a bell curve? I am not saying there isn’t more to this, but the information presented is irrelevant. This may honestly be the dumbest study I have come accross on the internet. And when the guy who’s managing your investments can’t beat a college kid guessing heads/tails, it’s not good news. the students’ correct guesses were charted against the number of years the managers were in the top 50% of all managersĪnd not surprisingly, here are the results:. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |