2009/2/27

Accenture Match Play

Accenture Match Play suffers devastating blow after Tiger Woods and all No. 1 seeds lose

I'm staring at the brackets. It does not look good. No Tiger. No Sergio. No Vijay. No Paddy. No Anthony Kim.
The only way that the weekend can be salvaged, in terms of TV ratings, is if Phil Mickelson faces Ernie Els on Saturday. Rory McIlroy against Camillo Villegas would be fun, but not sure these young guns are well known to be a draw. Justin Leonard against Jim Furyk would be a good match-up, but these guys are not that exciting. Of course, there's no guarantee any of these matches will occur; it all depends on what happens Friday.
The bigger problem, though, is the Sunday finals. I don't see a really exciting matchup for TV. The Gary Player and Sam Snead side of the draw has no one exciting left from a TV audience perspective. At least the other side could produce Phil Mickelson, Ernie Els, or Camillo Villegas.
Don't get me wrong, the players remaining are all good. But the TV audience drops like a rock in water if there's no Tiger. Unfortunately, the Accenture Match Play is not like March Madness where viewers watch for the upsets and underdogs.




Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Over the weekend, I finally found the time to give the R7 425 driver (9.5 degrees) by TaylorMade a good tryout. I had tried it out before on a couple holes in different rounds I played in the past month, but never really committed to playing a full 18 holes with it. A couple errant drives, and I would stick it back in the bag, opting to stick with my old, but halfway reliable Titleist 783K.
Well, after finally practicing with the R7 425 driver on the driving range for a good hour and then taking it out on the course, I can easily report that I'm switching over to the TaylorMade driver. And that's saying a lot because I'm pretty clingy with my clubs -- once I find one that I like, I usually stick with it. I've played Titleist drivers for about eight years, and still use the Callaway Steelhead 3 wood with a small head!
The key for me with the R7 was playing around with the movable weight screws on the driving range to find the right configuration for me. I recommend to everyone testing this driver out, to play around with the screws when you first hit the club. Frankly, I didn't know exactly what the yellow and red dot screws meant, other than that the red weighs more than the yellow. So I just played around with it, and watched my ball flight change with different configurations. I usually play a draw, and I ended up with a draw configuration. TaylorMade has a video on its site to help you figure the color coding configurations. You don't really need it, though, because with some trial and error, you should be able to find the right configuration that fits your swing.
Once I figured out the right screw configuration for my own swing, the R7 425 driver really worked like a charm. I've been reluctant to switch to a bigger head because, at least visually, I don't like the look of a huge blob at the end of my shaft. But the R7 425 model seems just about the right size for me of the newer generation of drivers (that now go up to 460 cc). I found it easy to hit, and pretty forgiving on off-center hits. I only started to get into trouble after I had been hitting the driver so well for the first 6 holes, that I started to really try to bomb the ball even more and ended up overswinging.
As far as distance goes, I think I picked up a few more yards of carry (which probably translates into even more yards of total distance on dry fairways). I didn't do a side-by-side comparison with my old Titleist, but that's an older club (with a lower degree), so the comparison may not be fair anyway. I didn't do exact measurements, but, based on the yardage markers at the range and course, I'd guess that my good drives averaged around 240 to 250 yards of carry, plus another 20 yards or so of roll. (Any drive over 280 yards would be a really great rip for me.) Once I have a little bit more time practicing with this club, I hope to be able to increase my fairways hit. One thing is for sure: I've made the switch to TaylorMade.

2009/2/24

價值策略 versus 趨勢策略






現在的市況, 大部份投資人會採用趨勢投資策略
在股災之時保留現金
香港的股票市場歷史較短或許沒多大代表性
就用美國道指過去百多年的數據說明一下價值策略vs趨勢策略的長線回報
過去道指如果有30%的跌幅, 已經算是大型股災
價值策略 = 跌幅30%後買入
趨勢策略 = 跌幅30%之後再等大市低位回升20%再買入
如果是選擇價值策略入市
個市跌了30%還是可以繼續下跌
用這個方法買入的23次歷史數據中, 短線6個月後有11次(48%)還是蝕錢
但平均來計, 5年後回報58%; 10年後回報93% (圖一)
如果是選擇趨勢投資策略入市
個市跌了30%後再等待股市低位反彈20%才入市
用這個方法買入的21次歷史數據中, 短線6個月後有15次(71%)還是蝕錢
而平均來計, 5年後回報只有28%; 10年後回報只有52% (圖二)
以歷史數據看, 價值策略比趨勢策略的蝕本機會較細和回報較高
如果抽出1929-32年美國大蕭條的數據
價值策略在其他14次跌幅大於30%後入市, 5年後的回報全是正數
平均5年回報是62%; 平均十年回報是119% (圖三)
香港的恆指跌幅通常比道指大
道指跌30%, 恆指要跌50%
歷史上, 恆指跌幅大於50%的次數只有5次:
1973年股災,跌幅達92%。
1981年股災,跌幅達63%
1987年股災,跌幅達52%
1998年股災, 跌幅達63%
2008年股災, 跌幅達60%? 70%? 80%?
套用以上的邏輯
如果港股的價值策略 = 跌50%後入貨
趨勢策略 = 跌50%後到低位反彈33%後入貨
在81, 87, 98股災, 價值策略勝
只有在73股災, 趨勢策略勝
如果大家認為今次的股災會像上世紀美國29-32年大蕭條那麼厲害
那麼持有現金一值到恆指低位反彈3成的方法會較好
但在港股過往除了73股災那一次外, 跌幅5成後入市基本上長線穩賺
以下觀點, 節錄自Benjamin Graham 的 Intelligent Investor
價格波動對於真正的投資者只有一項明確的意義. 價格劇跌時, 它們提供了明智的買進機會, 價格大漲時, 則提供了明智的賣出機會. 在其它時候, 他應該忘卻股票市場的一切, 只專注於股息的報酬與企業的營運績效.