No, Doppler, you are wrong. You are twisting semantics to your own liking.
Make up all the private definitions you want. But make it clear that that is what you are doing.
There IS an accepted definition of a "stock-picking contest". You pick "n" stocks, and put an equal dollar amount in each stock. It's a test of your ability to pick several stocks, which must do well in aggregate for you to win.
Several financial publications have have publicized these kinds of challenges for years. A common wrinkle is to pit the experts against the dartboard. The rules are always the same, though, in the regard that the dollar investment in each of the "n" stocks is equal.
A stock-picking (you call it stocks-picking, I call it tomato....) contest is NOT a portfolio contest - they are NOT one in the same, and there is plenty of precedent for the term.
A portfolio contest is entirely different - run along the lines of the rules that mutual funds follow. (And there generally ARE rules - typically you may have no more than x% invested in any one stock, so that you cannot get away with picking just a single stock and have your other picks be insignificant.)
I don't see the point of a contest where you pick one stock. There's no statistical validity to any supposed correlation between the result and the skill of the winning stock-picker. |
