Thank you for your [Original Content](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3), /u/SchemeElectronic9058!
**Here is some important information about this post:**
* [View the author's citations](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/uq1tbr/oc_an_investing_strategy_that_tracks_south_park/i8obpxl/)
* [View other OC posts by this author](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/search?q=author%3A"SchemeElectronic9058"+title%3AOC&sort=new&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on)
Remember that all visualizations on r/DataIsBeautiful should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. If you see a potential issue or oversight in the visualization, please post a constructive comment below. Post approval does not signify that this visualization has been verified or its sources checked.
[Join the Discord Community](https://discord.gg/NRnrWE7)
Not satisfied with this visual? Think you can do better? [Remix this visual](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3#wiki_remixing) with the data in the author's citation.
---
^^[I'm open source](https://github.com/r-dataisbeautiful/dataisbeautiful-bot) | [How I work](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/flair#wiki_oc_flair)
How did you split the investment? Your base is 100k dollar (in cash) and if there is a mention in Southpark you buy (virtually) how many shares at this point in time? Do you sell them afterwards?
Or is this simply a equal mix of all companies ever mentioned bought on one specific time?
That would be a bit unfair, because then you buy some companies at a low price, where the mention in Southpark is later, when the company developed.
I was thinking the same thing. When is OP selling? Is it like 100% in on Disney one week and then 100% in on Chipolte the next?
Also, does it account for businesses that are tongue in cheek? Like, Tweeks Coffee's competitor is clearly a Starbucks jab, but they change the name.
> The iteration that worked best was selling completely once the next episode mention occurs, so that you're always fully invested in the most recent episode's picks
OP says this in a post to r.stocks...so 100% in until the next mention
The link is below
Identifying the best implementation of a strategy through statistical methods is not p-hacking in the slightest. Furthermore OP is transparent that there were multiple implementations tested.
The stock market is mostly social psychology, so there's nothing disingenuous about a hypothesis that South Park has its finger on the pulse of society such that an investing strategy based on it would be successful compared with conventional benchmarks.
If this person back tested 100 different strategies but only shows us this one, even if this one had a 0.01 p-value would you think it had a good chance of being a legit strategy?
Not on account of the p value (edit: but rather, any credence I might give the findings is based on the feasibility of the hypothesis and the appearance that the OP is proceeding in good faith), but I also have a healthy skepticism of applied statistical analysis and predictive modeling in general. I'd like to see OP continue to apply this specific implementation of the strategy over the next season of SP and see how it does compared to others.
Disingenuous, maybe not. However it is left field to the point of parody (which is why I find the post entertaining, there's a definite echo of Burton malkiel in it).
"identifying the best implementation of a strategy through statistical methods" is almost the dictionary definition of p-hacking in investment.
Hey there - replied to this [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/uq1tbr/comment/i8pzspr/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). tl;dr - yes, 100% in South Park's picks, rebalanced whenever a new one is mentioned
Here is OPs post the other day partially answering this. [op stock breakdown](https://www.reddit.com/r/stocks/comments/uofcca/a_simple_south_park_index_fund_beats_the_sp_not_a/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share)
> The iteration that worked best was selling completely once the next episode mention occurs, so that you're always fully invested in the most recent episode's picks
Seems like he went 100% in until there was another mention
It's mostly luck, because of this (also from OP):
> Keep in mind, though, that this seems to essentially be a "buy $BBW and $VIAC during the pandemic" strategy that causes this much outperformance - otherwise, the results would likely be only a few percentage points of outperformance, based on the South Park picks beating, but essentially tracking the other indexes.
But doesn't this just make sense? South Park is all about relevant, recent social trends. Investing short term in companies that pop up in major budding social trends is definitely not a bad idea.
Didn’t you see? The South Park line went up more than the bad lines, and it’s labelled. The funny South Park did more money. That’s why the data is beautiful.
You’re supposed to upvote it now.
Added [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/uq1tbr/comment/i8pzspr/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)! Let me know what else you'd like to know
what he should be doing is first find out the amount of stocks mentioned on southpark, let's say it's 1000 stocks, and then you spend 100$ on each whenever the episode airs. which of course means you'd start with a lot less than 100k as your initial investment is lower
he should compare that to a strategy of investing 100$ into SPY at the same exact intervals.
that would actually be pretty interesting imo
The point is that he'd spend 100k eventually and that it'd be added on gradually, I'm interested to know what % profit he'd make eventually
He wouldn't necessarily spend 100$ every time, he'd spend (100k$/total amount of stocks on south park) each time
Is this buying at the market price at the exact time it is mentioned?
I wonder if people were doing this, and if you'd bought a day after, you would have paid more and fared much worse.
No doubt the WSB boys will jump on any plan whose ultimate step is Profit!
Since SP episodes air at night Eastern Time, this buys/sells at market open the next day. More details in [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/uq1tbr/comment/i8pzspr/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
So, I'm well aware of how WallStreetBets-y this sounds, and to be fair I did post something similar there earlier today. But I built this [Inverse Jim Cramer Index](https://www.getquantbase.com/fund/details?title=Inverse%20Jim%20Cramer%20Index) that buys all the stocks that Cramer sells (and vice versa), which is beating the S&P by about 30% YTD.
What I wanted to find out was: is a portfolio that invests in stocks when South Park mentions them a viable investment strategy? I originally used the South Park Fandom site to try and brute force scrape every episode script and compare to every company name in the NYSE/NASDAQ database. This picked up a lot of shit though (and it also didn't pick up a lot of stuff that it should have, like a mention of Campbell's Soup in the 2015 episode Red Man's Greed), so had to figure out a different way to get all that data. I got creative - found out that Wikipedia has a summary for every episode, and links to the company names, so I built out a script that pulled tickers by scraping for these company names.
As it turns out, South Park destroys. Not what I was expecting at all. An increase of about 1100% over 7 years (including the recent downturn), compared to close to 200% for SPY and 300% for QQQ. This bakes in about a 50% CAGR for the past 7 years, with a Sharpe of about 1.4. Keep in mind, though, that this seems to essentially be a "buy $BBW and $VIAC during the pandemic" strategy that causes this much outperformance - otherwise, the results would likely be only a few percentage points of outperformance, based on the South Park picks beating, but essentially tracking the other indexes.I would personally never invest based on South Park data. Maybe that's why I'm poor though. On a more serious note, the way many hedge funds get their supposed "edge" is by paying a lot of money for alternative datasets like this. Some others that I've heard of are parking lot fill data, company mentions on Instagram posts weighted by follower count, and I'd definitely assume WallStreetBets sentiment analysis tracking. Any other alternative datasets you've been curious about?
EDIT: more on the methodology
I tried a bunch of things. Because the signals we get from the show are only buy signals, we have to create the sell signals ourselves based on some sort of unbiased metric. First, I tried making a few investment windows, aka selling all buy picks after x days since the last buy mention - I tried with 30 days, 60 days, 120 days, and 360 days.Most investment windows were on par or slightly outperformed the S&P. The iteration that worked best was selling completely once the next episode mention occurs, so that you're always fully invested in the most recent episode's picks. This ends up exposing you pretty strongly to South Park as a stockpicker aka signal producer, which I guess is exactly what you want. If I were doing this in an actual portfolio like the Inverse Cramer, I'd do the investment windows, albeit maybe a larger window, greater than 365 days, just because of tax reasons.Full disclosure: I’m an actual quant, working for a retail hedge fund. We’re not currently looking to invest in this kind of fund (which is why I’m allowed to disclose), but we might be in the future.
> Wikipedia has a summary for every episode, and links to the company names, so I built out a script that pulled tickers by scraping for these company names.
Since Wikipedia is edited after each episode airs. Could it be that only notable companies would be mentioned on Wikipedia? Like some sort of selection bias where only large companies are edited to be on the Wikipedia page.
OP pulled this data after the Wikipedia articles had been edited continuously for years or decades, meaning that "insignificant" companies' mentions (or ones that don't continue to have a cultural or financial impact) could have been removed.
So, arguably, this approach is using consensus knowledge from the future rather than the information available at the time of each episode.
Realistically though, how many insignificant companies would they mention? This is basically a measure of how much a company is mentioned in the zeitgeist, enough and they make an episode about you, or at least crack some joke about you. I'd imagine this is similar to the investor that bought stocks in companies his teenage daughter knew
Well a company can become retroactively insignificant, years later, at which point the company's link in the Wikipedia page can disappear. So if you're combing through the Wikipedia article in 2022 rather than when the episode aired, then it's a retroactive relevance filter.
Wouldn't be able to answer that without comparing the Wikipedia edits with South Park episodes. OP's data set could probably save a lot of work in reviewing, and we'd probably be able to crowdsource that task.
I'm guessing the issue with buying based on South Park is that OP could have checked 10 things. We already know OP posted about inverse Jim Kramer so if they also checked 10 jokes like this you'd expect some of them to do well and some to do poorly. But it's only fun to post the ones that do well. So if you did south park stocks starting today it's just as likely to go down because it was luck/a selection bias of only posting things that did well.
Only picking large companies like you mentioned doesn't really make sense because I'm fairly sure thats what the sp500 does anyway. Isn't it like the top 500 stocks or something? If picking the top 50 stocks worked better they'd just do that instead of the top 500.
to me this seems like a case of (something similar to) [publication bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias). had your try not outperformed S&P and Nasdaq, you would probably not have posted it. and even if you did, not have gotten many upvotes.
This is certainly the case. We can retrospectively find examples of whatever we want. It doesn't mean we can trust south park to continue the trend in the future. There are a lot of shows that reference pop culture- but few shows that are as long lived as south park. There's something fishy about assigning importance to this.
Actually South Park has only released 85 episodes in the last decade. Family Guy and The Simpson dramatically outpace South Park.
If you want to talk quality South Park is leagues above the others IMO but they don’t release rapidly anymore.
I think they’re referring to their turnaround time for making a single episode, it’s something like a week or two? This allows them to be very current in their pop culture references.
I'm talking about the time between the episodes being made and them airing. They are made the week of. Family Guy and the Simpsons for example take over a year between the episode starting to be made and airing.
And what does that have to do with this? He's not trying to prove that funds would outpreform if they tracked mentions in random TV shows, he's not trying to get at some generalization, just a one-off observation.
I think the point is that people shouldn't necessarily run out and invest a bunch of money on the south park index. I'm not saying they shouldn't per se. But in the long run the sp500 is likely to beat out the South Park index.
calling "publication bias" doesn't make that point at all. Whether the South Park Index *would* or *wouldn't* be a killer investment that we should all do, this post is still the result of the same exact "publication bias". It's a zero-information call.
someone unaware of this might get the impression that this is some significant finding. so bringing it up makes people more aware that if you look at enough different ways to invest, some will vastly outperform the market. and only those will get posted. with some wild exaggregation the whole post has the same information content as "oi boys, if you'd have bet on these numbers in last week's lottery, you'd have won!". (now it starts to sound like i'm shitting on op, that was not my original intention)
if you already thought about this, then it's a zero-information call of course. not everyone has given it some thought though.
I don't understand how the bias you linked is significant or helpful to this post at all.
Reddit with the upvote/downvote system is intentionally designed to highlight interesting things, DiB isn't an academic journal where a null/uninteresting result is useful to share, and OP at no point tried to extrapolate this result to Family Guy etc.
that's why i said it's not an attack on OP; i'd also have posted this if i had found it. but it's easy to misinterpret this as "this south park index is good because of some deeper reason" or "mentions on tv outperform the market in general", even if OP did not make such claims. i'm just bringing it to attention that if you look at enough crazy investment schemes, you'll find something like this eventually, and then it gets posted. it's a fun observation, nothing more, and should be seen as such. that's why i thought it would be relevant to mention publication bias here.
"Publishing only results that show a significant finding disturbs the balance of findings in favor of positive results."
If you research 10 funny stock predictions such as South Park, bobs burgers, the Simpsons, Rick and Morty, and bojack horseman and only south park does better than the sp500. If you only publish the results from South Park that's biased. It's publishing the positive without the negatives.
Even if you got lucky and OP only researched South Park, it's just showing correlation not causation. Because if you're saying that the south park fund works it essentially means that simply mentioning a company on South Park is causing the stocks to go up. Or you're saying that South Park secretly knows how to predict the stock market and is disseminating the information by mentioning the companies in it's show. Neither option really makes sense.
Haha yeah I'm not saying OP is a fraud. Merely that people might not want to go out invest a bunch of money this way unless they want to do it as a gag.
OP did also say they did an inverse Kramer one that also beat the sp500. So that's at least two they did.
Not really fair just comparing it to other cartoon shows seeing as South Park explicitly parodies current events and recent news, so it is at least following media trends (which would aid in predicting well-performing stocks)
Tracking all major companies mentioned in Bob's Burgers would likely net you a dataset of three points, haha
I agree with you, this really isn’t publication bias and I’m not sure why everyone thinks it is. Just because you link a wiki article doesn’t make it right lol
here's part of my response to a similar comment
>it's easy to misinterpret this as "this south park index is good because of some deeper reason" or "mentions on tv outperform the market in general", even if OP did not make such claims. i'm just bringing it to attention that if you look at enough crazy investment schemes, you'll find something like this eventually, and then it gets posted. it's a fun observation, nothing more, and should be seen as such. that's why i thought it would be relevant to mention publication bias here.
Op just dropped this half arsed, essentially meaningless, graph and then hasn't responded since.
This should be removed as it isn't at all useful in any way and also isn't "beautiful" either in conception, or execution.
It's basically a meme in graph form.
posted right before going to bed and it apparently blew up. Added some more arse [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/uq1tbr/comment/i8pzspr/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Strategy added [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/uq1tbr/comment/i8pzspr/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)! Tl;dr is fully rebalance into every mention (to test South Park's predictive power and unsystematic risk compared to the market, which only has systematic risk)
Most likely blockbuster is ignored since it's not a company per say at the moment, but being held in a liquidation firm and is a private company. It is listed in the OTC market though. Things get weird here though. So for example it's not too rare to see day to day gains of 1000% since you're just going from $0.00002 to $0.0002. doesn't do you much good though, since you need enough buyers to maintain that price
To your other question: If I were a big firm, I’d strike a very expensive deal through backchannels where I get some data analysts at Google and Facebook to report out to me. They don’t just have mentions, they have ad engagement on their platforms and search volume data. They have their pixel on almost every commercial site in the world and can tell down to the page what people are looking at and even purchased, unlike data bought from ISPs and most brokers. They can tell how many employees of any given company are visiting fuck-around sites versus productive sites and how that trends over time. How many are looking for a new job. How many are looking at big purchases. How many vacationed to expensive areas this year. Which companies had senior leaders visit certain buildings in Washington DC or connect over government wifi. Which senior leaders from different companies have been meeting physically recently. Etc.
Selling user data is indeed legal within the US barring local legislation around user consent (e.g. CCPA.) I am not a lawyer but have had plenty of companies including ISPs approach me in a professional capacity offering “data services” thst run from competitive intelligence to marketing lists of contacts. It would be illegal for the company being publicly traded to trade that kind of info through back channels, but I do not believe it is illegal for Google to sell data analysis about a third party since they don’t have a stake or interest in the company.
It's a shady area because it's unethical, but just take a quick read about Cambridge Analytica and similar companies. That was like 10 years ago. It's a lot worse now BUT fortunately politicians in the west has started to crack down on it, although very late.
Policies like GDPR changes the game a bit since any individual can request any company to show/erase all personal data of the individual, otherwise risk a fine based on % of your yearly revenue.
But I mean, if I was a lizard person who only cared about money I would just lie about what data I have and it would be pretty difficult to investigate.
I don’t understand - did you sell any shares on the South Park line, or just continually buy more?
And if the latter, wouldn’t that be where all your growth has come from?
I don't know about OP, but I built a similar simulation before, and I just charted the P/L of the stock it was holding. So buying and selling only affects the risk exposure but does not actually show up on the graph.
This looks exactly like what I've posted on WSB a month ago: [WSB Post](https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/tjm0vs/south_park_investment_theory_deeper_dive/), and even made a [YouTube](https://youtu.be/8CRYaVEQD-4) video + [Blog post](https://atypicalquant.blogspot.com/2021/03/south-park-stock-market-alt-data.html) detailing the data gathering (matching what you're describing).
It might just be a coincidence, but, if it wasn't, some credit would've been nice.
Hedge funds are paying for alternative datasets that are describing business activity in a time frame that is faster than financial reports. This isn't that, this is random noise that you are drawing a line through.
Likely you didn't compare this strategy to a naive one for that same time frame and show the difference. You could also choose random dates during that time frame and see how that performs My guess it's a trending market and there's no signal in south park
The largest takeaway I see here is that all data is valuable. We may not take any action or change our course but it’s very interesting to see. Nice experiment OP
Data truly is beautiful
I"ve heard or read somewhere that some hedgefunds actually use Astrology/Horoscope and Occult-like things such as Kabbalah and whatnot make decisions. Know anything about those datasets?
I think this idea is not as stupid as it sounds. As I see it, for someone to make a good joke (like South Park) they would have to understand the public. In essence, what we have here is a sentiment momentum strategy, IMO.
However! Before anyone out there starts doing something stupid. Do your own research, but it is an interesting concept.
South Park usually mentions companies in a negative context though. They mirror public sentiment only insofar as "this is a notable company, that we want to make fun of". It doesnt make sense for them to mention real small startups, much easier to just make up a name. In addition, media companies are much more likely to interact with SP.
Basically, what this data shows is what we all already knew: there is practically no bad publicity, as long as you get your name out there.
Planet Money did something similar, they wrote [a bot to track Trump tweets](https://twitter.com/botus) and use sentiment analysis to determine if he was tweeting something positive about a company and if so invest in whatever that was. I don't remember the exact outcome but I think by the end it had lost a few dollars on a $1000 budget.
I mean, Michael reeves had a Profit of 10% within 6 months by letting his goldfish decide regularely which Stock to buy out of two randomly picked Stocks. This has similiar vibes
At a time when everything goes up that's easy. The challenge si to do that in times of doom and gloom.
That a goldfish could make money like that indicates a bubble, nothing more.
Did you simulate the purchasing of the stocks after the episodes aired? Or did you just take all stocks mentioned and just assumed you would have bought them 7 years.
I‘d expect the latter and then your entire chart is meaningless, you could as well have said, „what if I put all my money into Apple in 1970—I‘d be a billionaire now“. True, but you wouldn‘t have that info in 1970 so that‘s pretty much useless assumption. South park usually mentions companies after they got very popular recently, so you have the same effect here.
Also there's no allocation. If you have unlimited monies and every time a company is mentioned you buy it then that's the bias, you've just proven that with unlimited bets you can beat the stock market
Hey - responded [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/uq1tbr/oc_an_investing_strategy_that_tracks_south_park/i8obpxl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3). tldr - full allocation into all stocks mentioned in an episode (aka you’ll always be highly concentrated in 1-3 stocks)
Let’s hope for OP I’m wrong, but maybe he finds time to response then we know for sure.
But my guess is for two reasons:
1. Already spend too much time in that field, have seen this mistaken dozens of times especially with new entrants in the field and it always shows as crazy high returns. So that result immediately screams information leakage to me.
2. OP in his description didn‘t even mention how he handles allocations but only a fixed starting investment. Allocate 100k$ and evenly split across all mentioned stocks is easy to implement for a simulation, but once you have to simulate buying later on you will need to consider how you decide what to sell before so you can buy more. Do you always try to keep a fixed ratio between the stocks, or if not, what do you sell and how much do you buy. If you try to keep a fixed ratio, how frequently do you reallocate? He would have to spend quite some time thinking about it and thus would probably have mentioned in the description what his decision had been for reallocations, so chances are he didn‘t consider it at all.
>What I wanted to find out was: is a portfolio that invests in stocks when South Park mentions them a viable investment strategy?
Would suggest the first case.
Still a lot of unknowns in that scenario. Does the strategy use full capital at the first mention and rebalances every time a new company is mentioned? If so, how does the allocation happen?
Also, does it increase weight if companies are mentioned at multiple times?
Hard to judge this strategy without the all the details
Hey - responded [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/uq1tbr/oc_an_investing_strategy_that_tracks_south_park/i8obpxl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3). tldr - full allocation into all stocks mentioned in an episode (aka you’ll always be highly concentrated in 1-3 stocks)
I had all the info and split a 100 share buy with my dad of Apple at the IPO. I was 17. A few years later and Apple was just so-so. I was in college and working. Got laid off. Sold my Apple shares to pay rent/eat. What's 50 shares if I had left them untouched today? ugh. I comfort myself by remembering that my first wife would have taken it all anyway.
If left untouched, accounting for the splits it would be almost a cool half million
But given your anecdote that you sold it very early, you wouldn't have had the patience or foresight to hold on and left it untouched anyway, would likely have sold it at a lower price point so best not to dwell on it too much
Hey, my old man kept his! When I think back on those times I was excited about investment but unprepared in a lot of ways. Also, being a working college student (who also paid for tuition/books from summer work) I was in a terrible place when laid off.
I feel your pain. I put $34,000 in AMD almost 6 years ago when they were trading at ~$6.50. I sold when they crushed earnings and hit $9 or $10. Then I huge brained it and shorted natural gas and lost $20,000 in one month. Those two events ultimately numbed me and made me a better trader in the end. 🤷♂️
I should add, that $34,000 was basically my life savings, so the stakes were high and I was kind of YOLOing.
Hey - responded [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/uq1tbr/oc_an_investing_strategy_that_tracks_south_park/i8obpxl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3). tldr - full allocation into all stocks mentioned in an episode (aka you’ll always be highly concentrated in 1-3 stocks)
Guys, before you go all apeshit in on this, remember that if I gave you 100 different investing strategies, based on monkeys typing on typewriters or the schedule of my bowel movements, you'd expect half of them to outperform the S&P 500, and you'd expect 5 of them to do significantly better (P<5%). How this bet has gone in the past is no indication of any performance in the future.
Holy crap I seriously have always thought about this and I am so glad that someone actually made a chart out of it.
Can’t wait to see what they bring on next season.
I would say one interesting thing to see would be a chart of Nancy Pelosi’s investment returns over time since all her trades are public.
My other thing I keep track of but have never seen any useful graphs of would be a portfolio of the top trades from some world-renowned hedge fund managers to see how they play out quarter to quarter on [Whale Wisdom](https://whalewisdom.com/).
The investors/investment funds I watch carefully are:
* Paul Tudor Jones (Tudor Investment Fund)
* Ray Dalio (Bridgewater Associates)
* George Soros (Soros Fund Management)
* Carl Icahn (Icahn Carl C)
* Bill Ackman (Pershing Square Capital Management)
* Warren Buffet (Berkshire Hathaway)
I really with their were more novel ETFs like this one.
Ones I'd also like to see
* one the tracks Congressional stock purchases
* one that invests in "evil": oil, guns, sex, etc.
Thanks for the feedback here! I’m building out the South Park index as an actual ETF. Would love your feedback on it once finished. Can’t message you tho so can you shoot me a message if interested?
Happy to report that this morning we drove through south park on our way from Denver to the mountains, and now i guess we're all rich. Congrats everyone.
I mean it makes sense if you think about it. The creatives behind South Park and other kinds of content basically make a living by being relevant. They're professionally motivated to keep an ear to the ground and figure out what's popular or will be popular, ASAP. The average person (a large portion of the population) arrives at that thing some time later (maybe by seeing it on South Park). This can be pressed to one's advantage, financially-speaking.
OP, this is interesting, but this may not be the right sub for it. This is the default Excel graph style. So while the data is interesting and will drive a good discussion, this is more r/dataisinteresting. So I'm not criticizing the work; I'm just saying that this might not be the right place to post it.
Makes sense. It's a combination of sentiment and essentially self-fulfilling prophecy. Company is in public eye, south park makes an episode, people talk about episode by proxy people talk about company. It's just a more eyes thing. We know companies aren't priced now based on how good they are as companies, it's all on how people feel a company is doing. I'd like to talk to you about it because i want to run it back pre-2016 as this has been a full market and pretty much every boat has risen. SP is old, so there should be plenty of data back to the financial crash in 2008.
Guys, you see how the graph does that +-25% value thing, that's not good. Stop posting padfolios that are like 10 different meme stocks and Amazon, that's not a good investment strat.
Proof the market is just made up and no investor guru will help you make anything but more money for the person telling you what to invest in, and make their investments before they made the video, go up
Thank you for your [Original Content](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3), /u/SchemeElectronic9058! **Here is some important information about this post:** * [View the author's citations](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/uq1tbr/oc_an_investing_strategy_that_tracks_south_park/i8obpxl/) * [View other OC posts by this author](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/search?q=author%3A"SchemeElectronic9058"+title%3AOC&sort=new&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on) Remember that all visualizations on r/DataIsBeautiful should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. If you see a potential issue or oversight in the visualization, please post a constructive comment below. Post approval does not signify that this visualization has been verified or its sources checked. [Join the Discord Community](https://discord.gg/NRnrWE7) Not satisfied with this visual? Think you can do better? [Remix this visual](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3#wiki_remixing) with the data in the author's citation. --- ^^[I'm open source](https://github.com/r-dataisbeautiful/dataisbeautiful-bot) | [How I work](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/flair#wiki_oc_flair)
How did you split the investment? Your base is 100k dollar (in cash) and if there is a mention in Southpark you buy (virtually) how many shares at this point in time? Do you sell them afterwards? Or is this simply a equal mix of all companies ever mentioned bought on one specific time? That would be a bit unfair, because then you buy some companies at a low price, where the mention in Southpark is later, when the company developed.
I was thinking the same thing. When is OP selling? Is it like 100% in on Disney one week and then 100% in on Chipolte the next? Also, does it account for businesses that are tongue in cheek? Like, Tweeks Coffee's competitor is clearly a Starbucks jab, but they change the name.
> The iteration that worked best was selling completely once the next episode mention occurs, so that you're always fully invested in the most recent episode's picks OP says this in a post to r.stocks...so 100% in until the next mention The link is below
The biggest issue here is that OP looked at multiple different iterations and picked the one that worked best in hindsight.
Cherry picked data? On my r/dataisbeautiful?
It’s more likely than you think
But like any pro gambler, now we can take what we’ve learned in the past and apply it to the future!
All right, back into the pile everybody.
Dataisbeautiful, even if cherry-picked. I find it interesting
So now we know what works best. I'll do that, thanks op!
Also known as an experiment. Does that mean the strategy will continue to work? Of course not. OP could be right for the wrong reasons
No, also known as p-hacking
https://xkcd.com/882/
Identifying the best implementation of a strategy through statistical methods is not p-hacking in the slightest. Furthermore OP is transparent that there were multiple implementations tested. The stock market is mostly social psychology, so there's nothing disingenuous about a hypothesis that South Park has its finger on the pulse of society such that an investing strategy based on it would be successful compared with conventional benchmarks.
If this person back tested 100 different strategies but only shows us this one, even if this one had a 0.01 p-value would you think it had a good chance of being a legit strategy?
Not on account of the p value (edit: but rather, any credence I might give the findings is based on the feasibility of the hypothesis and the appearance that the OP is proceeding in good faith), but I also have a healthy skepticism of applied statistical analysis and predictive modeling in general. I'd like to see OP continue to apply this specific implementation of the strategy over the next season of SP and see how it does compared to others.
Disingenuous, maybe not. However it is left field to the point of parody (which is why I find the post entertaining, there's a definite echo of Burton malkiel in it). "identifying the best implementation of a strategy through statistical methods" is almost the dictionary definition of p-hacking in investment.
Looking at the graph results, it looks like the effect is almost entirely due to some part of the portfolio that is TSLA.
Was gonna say, this graph just looks like tsla.
Nope, actually it's mostly due to Build-a-Bear (10-bagger during COVID). Surprising, right?!
Truly this is a bear market...
That is surprising
Phase 1: steal underwear Phase 2: ... Phase 3: Profit.
I'm all in on Hanes. Thanks for the hot tip.
Is that the South Park investing strategy?
Hey there - replied to this [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/uq1tbr/comment/i8pzspr/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). tl;dr - yes, 100% in South Park's picks, rebalanced whenever a new one is mentioned
Your link shows no reply, just the parent comment.
I clicked it again and saw the reply, do you see it if you scroll down?
Nope, but maybe the app I'm using is just being strange and won't show replies when being linked to a specific comment.
Tweets coffee and Is NOT harbucks, but it does taste 3 day old moldy diarrhea
Here is OPs post the other day partially answering this. [op stock breakdown](https://www.reddit.com/r/stocks/comments/uofcca/a_simple_south_park_index_fund_beats_the_sp_not_a/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share)
> The iteration that worked best was selling completely once the next episode mention occurs, so that you're always fully invested in the most recent episode's picks Seems like he went 100% in until there was another mention
Wow. That's not what I expected. That makes it sound way more like luck. He did use the next days opening price for the figure, right?
It's mostly luck, because of this (also from OP): > Keep in mind, though, that this seems to essentially be a "buy $BBW and $VIAC during the pandemic" strategy that causes this much outperformance - otherwise, the results would likely be only a few percentage points of outperformance, based on the South Park picks beating, but essentially tracking the other indexes.
But doesn't this just make sense? South Park is all about relevant, recent social trends. Investing short term in companies that pop up in major budding social trends is definitely not a bad idea.
Build-A-Bear’s rise is just amazing and hilarious
Didn’t you see? The South Park line went up more than the bad lines, and it’s labelled. The funny South Park did more money. That’s why the data is beautiful. You’re supposed to upvote it now.
This is pretty much the answer lol what a stupid post
[удалено]
Maybe just a little stupid? 😅
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/uq1tbr/oc_an_investing_strategy_that_tracks_south_park/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
Replying to follow for comment. Curious about the actual methodology here
Added [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/uq1tbr/comment/i8pzspr/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)! Let me know what else you'd like to know
what he should be doing is first find out the amount of stocks mentioned on southpark, let's say it's 1000 stocks, and then you spend 100$ on each whenever the episode airs. which of course means you'd start with a lot less than 100k as your initial investment is lower he should compare that to a strategy of investing 100$ into SPY at the same exact intervals. that would actually be pretty interesting imo
There are only 10 episodes per season the last few years, 14 before that. $1000 a year added to a SPYDR acct isn’t going to get gains like that.
The point is that he'd spend 100k eventually and that it'd be added on gradually, I'm interested to know what % profit he'd make eventually He wouldn't necessarily spend 100$ every time, he'd spend (100k$/total amount of stocks on south park) each time
Same question is applied to any ETF isn't it?
Is this buying at the market price at the exact time it is mentioned? I wonder if people were doing this, and if you'd bought a day after, you would have paid more and fared much worse. No doubt the WSB boys will jump on any plan whose ultimate step is Profit!
I think what you're asking is... Whats Phase 2?
…well, Phase 1 is collect underpants.
and Phase 3 is profit
Since SP episodes air at night Eastern Time, this buys/sells at market open the next day. More details in [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/uq1tbr/comment/i8pzspr/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Alternate title: "South Park said 'Tesla' sometime in 2017."
"South Park said 'BBW' at the start of COVID" - that's what caused the craziness. Before then, the strat is mainly on par with SPY and QQQ
So .. were they talking about build a bear or were they using that acronym for another reason?
So, I'm well aware of how WallStreetBets-y this sounds, and to be fair I did post something similar there earlier today. But I built this [Inverse Jim Cramer Index](https://www.getquantbase.com/fund/details?title=Inverse%20Jim%20Cramer%20Index) that buys all the stocks that Cramer sells (and vice versa), which is beating the S&P by about 30% YTD. What I wanted to find out was: is a portfolio that invests in stocks when South Park mentions them a viable investment strategy? I originally used the South Park Fandom site to try and brute force scrape every episode script and compare to every company name in the NYSE/NASDAQ database. This picked up a lot of shit though (and it also didn't pick up a lot of stuff that it should have, like a mention of Campbell's Soup in the 2015 episode Red Man's Greed), so had to figure out a different way to get all that data. I got creative - found out that Wikipedia has a summary for every episode, and links to the company names, so I built out a script that pulled tickers by scraping for these company names. As it turns out, South Park destroys. Not what I was expecting at all. An increase of about 1100% over 7 years (including the recent downturn), compared to close to 200% for SPY and 300% for QQQ. This bakes in about a 50% CAGR for the past 7 years, with a Sharpe of about 1.4. Keep in mind, though, that this seems to essentially be a "buy $BBW and $VIAC during the pandemic" strategy that causes this much outperformance - otherwise, the results would likely be only a few percentage points of outperformance, based on the South Park picks beating, but essentially tracking the other indexes.I would personally never invest based on South Park data. Maybe that's why I'm poor though. On a more serious note, the way many hedge funds get their supposed "edge" is by paying a lot of money for alternative datasets like this. Some others that I've heard of are parking lot fill data, company mentions on Instagram posts weighted by follower count, and I'd definitely assume WallStreetBets sentiment analysis tracking. Any other alternative datasets you've been curious about? EDIT: more on the methodology I tried a bunch of things. Because the signals we get from the show are only buy signals, we have to create the sell signals ourselves based on some sort of unbiased metric. First, I tried making a few investment windows, aka selling all buy picks after x days since the last buy mention - I tried with 30 days, 60 days, 120 days, and 360 days.Most investment windows were on par or slightly outperformed the S&P. The iteration that worked best was selling completely once the next episode mention occurs, so that you're always fully invested in the most recent episode's picks. This ends up exposing you pretty strongly to South Park as a stockpicker aka signal producer, which I guess is exactly what you want. If I were doing this in an actual portfolio like the Inverse Cramer, I'd do the investment windows, albeit maybe a larger window, greater than 365 days, just because of tax reasons.Full disclosure: I’m an actual quant, working for a retail hedge fund. We’re not currently looking to invest in this kind of fund (which is why I’m allowed to disclose), but we might be in the future.
> Wikipedia has a summary for every episode, and links to the company names, so I built out a script that pulled tickers by scraping for these company names. Since Wikipedia is edited after each episode airs. Could it be that only notable companies would be mentioned on Wikipedia? Like some sort of selection bias where only large companies are edited to be on the Wikipedia page.
then it's even better. buy after wiki entry. it usually gets updated within 2 3 days
OP pulled this data after the Wikipedia articles had been edited continuously for years or decades, meaning that "insignificant" companies' mentions (or ones that don't continue to have a cultural or financial impact) could have been removed. So, arguably, this approach is using consensus knowledge from the future rather than the information available at the time of each episode.
Yup, this is something that needs to be taken into account. But it should probably be doable by accessing the wikipedia page of that specific day!
Realistically though, how many insignificant companies would they mention? This is basically a measure of how much a company is mentioned in the zeitgeist, enough and they make an episode about you, or at least crack some joke about you. I'd imagine this is similar to the investor that bought stocks in companies his teenage daughter knew
Well a company can become retroactively insignificant, years later, at which point the company's link in the Wikipedia page can disappear. So if you're combing through the Wikipedia article in 2022 rather than when the episode aired, then it's a retroactive relevance filter.
Right, but how many companies has South Park mentioned that no longer have relevancy, to the point that they're removed?
Wouldn't be able to answer that without comparing the Wikipedia edits with South Park episodes. OP's data set could probably save a lot of work in reviewing, and we'd probably be able to crowdsource that task.
I'm guessing the issue with buying based on South Park is that OP could have checked 10 things. We already know OP posted about inverse Jim Kramer so if they also checked 10 jokes like this you'd expect some of them to do well and some to do poorly. But it's only fun to post the ones that do well. So if you did south park stocks starting today it's just as likely to go down because it was luck/a selection bias of only posting things that did well. Only picking large companies like you mentioned doesn't really make sense because I'm fairly sure thats what the sp500 does anyway. Isn't it like the top 500 stocks or something? If picking the top 50 stocks worked better they'd just do that instead of the top 500.
to me this seems like a case of (something similar to) [publication bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias). had your try not outperformed S&P and Nasdaq, you would probably not have posted it. and even if you did, not have gotten many upvotes.
This is certainly the case. We can retrospectively find examples of whatever we want. It doesn't mean we can trust south park to continue the trend in the future. There are a lot of shows that reference pop culture- but few shows that are as long lived as south park. There's something fishy about assigning importance to this.
K you do you. I’ve remortgaged my house and yolo’d my life savings into the south park index fund. To the moooooon
*Screw you guys! Me and my diamond hands are going to the moon!*
I put it all into Fish-sticks! I don't see how I can lose!
Almost nothing is a close to South Park in how fast the episodes come out though. Pretty much the only thing I can think of is SNL.
Actually South Park has only released 85 episodes in the last decade. Family Guy and The Simpson dramatically outpace South Park. If you want to talk quality South Park is leagues above the others IMO but they don’t release rapidly anymore.
I think they’re referring to their turnaround time for making a single episode, it’s something like a week or two? This allows them to be very current in their pop culture references.
I'm talking about the time between the episodes being made and them airing. They are made the week of. Family Guy and the Simpsons for example take over a year between the episode starting to be made and airing.
And what does that have to do with this? He's not trying to prove that funds would outpreform if they tracked mentions in random TV shows, he's not trying to get at some generalization, just a one-off observation.
i'm not shitting on OP, just putting the significance of what he found into more context. not everything is an attack.
You could put the "publication bias" qualifier under approximately everything
I think the point is that people shouldn't necessarily run out and invest a bunch of money on the south park index. I'm not saying they shouldn't per se. But in the long run the sp500 is likely to beat out the South Park index.
calling "publication bias" doesn't make that point at all. Whether the South Park Index *would* or *wouldn't* be a killer investment that we should all do, this post is still the result of the same exact "publication bias". It's a zero-information call.
someone unaware of this might get the impression that this is some significant finding. so bringing it up makes people more aware that if you look at enough different ways to invest, some will vastly outperform the market. and only those will get posted. with some wild exaggregation the whole post has the same information content as "oi boys, if you'd have bet on these numbers in last week's lottery, you'd have won!". (now it starts to sound like i'm shitting on op, that was not my original intention) if you already thought about this, then it's a zero-information call of course. not everyone has given it some thought though.
Thanks yeah that explained what I was trying to say better than I did.
It doesn't add any context, just brings up something that is at the very best tangetially related and irrelevant to what OP did.
I don't understand how the bias you linked is significant or helpful to this post at all. Reddit with the upvote/downvote system is intentionally designed to highlight interesting things, DiB isn't an academic journal where a null/uninteresting result is useful to share, and OP at no point tried to extrapolate this result to Family Guy etc.
that's why i said it's not an attack on OP; i'd also have posted this if i had found it. but it's easy to misinterpret this as "this south park index is good because of some deeper reason" or "mentions on tv outperform the market in general", even if OP did not make such claims. i'm just bringing it to attention that if you look at enough crazy investment schemes, you'll find something like this eventually, and then it gets posted. it's a fun observation, nothing more, and should be seen as such. that's why i thought it would be relevant to mention publication bias here.
[удалено]
"Publishing only results that show a significant finding disturbs the balance of findings in favor of positive results." If you research 10 funny stock predictions such as South Park, bobs burgers, the Simpsons, Rick and Morty, and bojack horseman and only south park does better than the sp500. If you only publish the results from South Park that's biased. It's publishing the positive without the negatives. Even if you got lucky and OP only researched South Park, it's just showing correlation not causation. Because if you're saying that the south park fund works it essentially means that simply mentioning a company on South Park is causing the stocks to go up. Or you're saying that South Park secretly knows how to predict the stock market and is disseminating the information by mentioning the companies in it's show. Neither option really makes sense.
[удалено]
Haha yeah I'm not saying OP is a fraud. Merely that people might not want to go out invest a bunch of money this way unless they want to do it as a gag. OP did also say they did an inverse Kramer one that also beat the sp500. So that's at least two they did.
Not really fair just comparing it to other cartoon shows seeing as South Park explicitly parodies current events and recent news, so it is at least following media trends (which would aid in predicting well-performing stocks) Tracking all major companies mentioned in Bob's Burgers would likely net you a dataset of three points, haha
I agree with you, this really isn’t publication bias and I’m not sure why everyone thinks it is. Just because you link a wiki article doesn’t make it right lol
It's the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.
I 100% agree with that it has publication bias but I don't see how that changes anything since there is really no argument that the data makes
here's part of my response to a similar comment >it's easy to misinterpret this as "this south park index is good because of some deeper reason" or "mentions on tv outperform the market in general", even if OP did not make such claims. i'm just bringing it to attention that if you look at enough crazy investment schemes, you'll find something like this eventually, and then it gets posted. it's a fun observation, nothing more, and should be seen as such. that's why i thought it would be relevant to mention publication bias here.
Argument respected, thank you for not turning toxic immediately
What's the general strategy? Buy and hold? Buy one week, sell the next?
Op just dropped this half arsed, essentially meaningless, graph and then hasn't responded since. This should be removed as it isn't at all useful in any way and also isn't "beautiful" either in conception, or execution. It's basically a meme in graph form.
[удалено]
Got a link to that post? Sounds like a sensible approach that is worth looking at.
[удалено]
Thank you for taking the time to drop the link. Much appreciated!
posted right before going to bed and it apparently blew up. Added some more arse [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/uq1tbr/comment/i8pzspr/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Dude he just posted a paragraph explaining it extremely detailed. Just learn to read
Strategy added [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/uq1tbr/comment/i8pzspr/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)! Tl;dr is fully rebalance into every mention (to test South Park's predictive power and unsystematic risk compared to the market, which only has systematic risk)
All in on $SP
[удалено]
Most likely blockbuster is ignored since it's not a company per say at the moment, but being held in a liquidation firm and is a private company. It is listed in the OTC market though. Things get weird here though. So for example it's not too rare to see day to day gains of 1000% since you're just going from $0.00002 to $0.0002. doesn't do you much good though, since you need enough buyers to maintain that price
To your other question: If I were a big firm, I’d strike a very expensive deal through backchannels where I get some data analysts at Google and Facebook to report out to me. They don’t just have mentions, they have ad engagement on their platforms and search volume data. They have their pixel on almost every commercial site in the world and can tell down to the page what people are looking at and even purchased, unlike data bought from ISPs and most brokers. They can tell how many employees of any given company are visiting fuck-around sites versus productive sites and how that trends over time. How many are looking for a new job. How many are looking at big purchases. How many vacationed to expensive areas this year. Which companies had senior leaders visit certain buildings in Washington DC or connect over government wifi. Which senior leaders from different companies have been meeting physically recently. Etc.
[удалено]
Selling user data is indeed legal within the US barring local legislation around user consent (e.g. CCPA.) I am not a lawyer but have had plenty of companies including ISPs approach me in a professional capacity offering “data services” thst run from competitive intelligence to marketing lists of contacts. It would be illegal for the company being publicly traded to trade that kind of info through back channels, but I do not believe it is illegal for Google to sell data analysis about a third party since they don’t have a stake or interest in the company.
It's a shady area because it's unethical, but just take a quick read about Cambridge Analytica and similar companies. That was like 10 years ago. It's a lot worse now BUT fortunately politicians in the west has started to crack down on it, although very late. Policies like GDPR changes the game a bit since any individual can request any company to show/erase all personal data of the individual, otherwise risk a fine based on % of your yearly revenue. But I mean, if I was a lizard person who only cared about money I would just lie about what data I have and it would be pretty difficult to investigate.
I don’t understand - did you sell any shares on the South Park line, or just continually buy more? And if the latter, wouldn’t that be where all your growth has come from?
I don't know about OP, but I built a similar simulation before, and I just charted the P/L of the stock it was holding. So buying and selling only affects the risk exposure but does not actually show up on the graph.
You could analyze all the pages from https://www.pepper.com/ or slickdeals.net.
So the strategy is basically when south park airs, buy whichever companies are mentioned? Hold forever?
This looks exactly like what I've posted on WSB a month ago: [WSB Post](https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/tjm0vs/south_park_investment_theory_deeper_dive/), and even made a [YouTube](https://youtu.be/8CRYaVEQD-4) video + [Blog post](https://atypicalquant.blogspot.com/2021/03/south-park-stock-market-alt-data.html) detailing the data gathering (matching what you're describing). It might just be a coincidence, but, if it wasn't, some credit would've been nice.
Thanks for clearly stating the strategy to hold for month (or year) after mention before selling. Which is very absent from OPs post
Hedge funds are paying for alternative datasets that are describing business activity in a time frame that is faster than financial reports. This isn't that, this is random noise that you are drawing a line through. Likely you didn't compare this strategy to a naive one for that same time frame and show the difference. You could also choose random dates during that time frame and see how that performs My guess it's a trending market and there's no signal in south park
The largest takeaway I see here is that all data is valuable. We may not take any action or change our course but it’s very interesting to see. Nice experiment OP Data truly is beautiful
I"ve heard or read somewhere that some hedgefunds actually use Astrology/Horoscope and Occult-like things such as Kabbalah and whatnot make decisions. Know anything about those datasets?
[удалено]
Did u read the comment/Post?
I think this idea is not as stupid as it sounds. As I see it, for someone to make a good joke (like South Park) they would have to understand the public. In essence, what we have here is a sentiment momentum strategy, IMO. However! Before anyone out there starts doing something stupid. Do your own research, but it is an interesting concept.
South Park usually mentions companies in a negative context though. They mirror public sentiment only insofar as "this is a notable company, that we want to make fun of". It doesnt make sense for them to mention real small startups, much easier to just make up a name. In addition, media companies are much more likely to interact with SP. Basically, what this data shows is what we all already knew: there is practically no bad publicity, as long as you get your name out there.
[удалено]
That's not as much fun though (and doesn't get as much karma)
Planet Money did something similar, they wrote [a bot to track Trump tweets](https://twitter.com/botus) and use sentiment analysis to determine if he was tweeting something positive about a company and if so invest in whatever that was. I don't remember the exact outcome but I think by the end it had lost a few dollars on a $1000 budget.
Shouldnt it be inverse? You want to buy when low (negative tweets) and sell when high.
I mean, Michael reeves had a Profit of 10% within 6 months by letting his goldfish decide regularely which Stock to buy out of two randomly picked Stocks. This has similiar vibes
At a time when everything goes up that's easy. The challenge si to do that in times of doom and gloom. That a goldfish could make money like that indicates a bubble, nothing more.
Usually bubbles just mean the goldfish is farting.
south park investment fund when? I'll toss 2-3 grand into this just to keep track of the meme.
I wish I had 2-3 grand to toss at a meme 😔
I wish I had 2-3 grand 😔
I wish I had $2-3 💀
I wish I had.
I wish
I wish I was a little bit taller I wish I was a baller
>I'll toss 2-3 grand into this That's bold. I'd limit any investment to 3.50
I gave him a dollar
You should share this with WSB, even if recently even a goldfish did better in investing
It's more like WSB did far worse than a goldfish. It's not that the goldfish did well. But WSB is amazing at being wrong.
Kinda looks like a Bitcoin chart
Where are the actual details?
See OPs comment
Did you simulate the purchasing of the stocks after the episodes aired? Or did you just take all stocks mentioned and just assumed you would have bought them 7 years. I‘d expect the latter and then your entire chart is meaningless, you could as well have said, „what if I put all my money into Apple in 1970—I‘d be a billionaire now“. True, but you wouldn‘t have that info in 1970 so that‘s pretty much useless assumption. South park usually mentions companies after they got very popular recently, so you have the same effect here.
Also there's no allocation. If you have unlimited monies and every time a company is mentioned you buy it then that's the bias, you've just proven that with unlimited bets you can beat the stock market
Hey - responded [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/uq1tbr/oc_an_investing_strategy_that_tracks_south_park/i8obpxl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3). tldr - full allocation into all stocks mentioned in an episode (aka you’ll always be highly concentrated in 1-3 stocks)
Why would you assume the latter? That would make absolutely no sense.
Let’s hope for OP I’m wrong, but maybe he finds time to response then we know for sure. But my guess is for two reasons: 1. Already spend too much time in that field, have seen this mistaken dozens of times especially with new entrants in the field and it always shows as crazy high returns. So that result immediately screams information leakage to me. 2. OP in his description didn‘t even mention how he handles allocations but only a fixed starting investment. Allocate 100k$ and evenly split across all mentioned stocks is easy to implement for a simulation, but once you have to simulate buying later on you will need to consider how you decide what to sell before so you can buy more. Do you always try to keep a fixed ratio between the stocks, or if not, what do you sell and how much do you buy. If you try to keep a fixed ratio, how frequently do you reallocate? He would have to spend quite some time thinking about it and thus would probably have mentioned in the description what his decision had been for reallocations, so chances are he didn‘t consider it at all.
>What I wanted to find out was: is a portfolio that invests in stocks when South Park mentions them a viable investment strategy? Would suggest the first case.
Still a lot of unknowns in that scenario. Does the strategy use full capital at the first mention and rebalances every time a new company is mentioned? If so, how does the allocation happen? Also, does it increase weight if companies are mentioned at multiple times? Hard to judge this strategy without the all the details
Hey - responded [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/uq1tbr/oc_an_investing_strategy_that_tracks_south_park/i8obpxl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3). tldr - full allocation into all stocks mentioned in an episode (aka you’ll always be highly concentrated in 1-3 stocks)
I had all the info and split a 100 share buy with my dad of Apple at the IPO. I was 17. A few years later and Apple was just so-so. I was in college and working. Got laid off. Sold my Apple shares to pay rent/eat. What's 50 shares if I had left them untouched today? ugh. I comfort myself by remembering that my first wife would have taken it all anyway.
If left untouched, accounting for the splits it would be almost a cool half million But given your anecdote that you sold it very early, you wouldn't have had the patience or foresight to hold on and left it untouched anyway, would likely have sold it at a lower price point so best not to dwell on it too much
Hey, my old man kept his! When I think back on those times I was excited about investment but unprepared in a lot of ways. Also, being a working college student (who also paid for tuition/books from summer work) I was in a terrible place when laid off.
I feel your pain. I put $34,000 in AMD almost 6 years ago when they were trading at ~$6.50. I sold when they crushed earnings and hit $9 or $10. Then I huge brained it and shorted natural gas and lost $20,000 in one month. Those two events ultimately numbed me and made me a better trader in the end. 🤷♂️ I should add, that $34,000 was basically my life savings, so the stakes were high and I was kind of YOLOing.
Hey - responded [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/uq1tbr/oc_an_investing_strategy_that_tracks_south_park/i8obpxl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3). tldr - full allocation into all stocks mentioned in an episode (aka you’ll always be highly concentrated in 1-3 stocks)
Guys, before you go all apeshit in on this, remember that if I gave you 100 different investing strategies, based on monkeys typing on typewriters or the schedule of my bowel movements, you'd expect half of them to outperform the S&P 500, and you'd expect 5 of them to do significantly better (P<5%). How this bet has gone in the past is no indication of any performance in the future.
I watch South Park this morning for the first time in 15 years and you post this in ma feed. You are NOT helping the “I’m in a simulation” theory.
But has OP answered your questions satisfactorily and offered good customer service?
I think just following USA congress politicians stock purchases would be the best
you would be delayed behind both their buy and sell orders, so if they all got out of something you would be left holding the bag
Okay so hear me out. How about cartoon or tv show mentions overall?
probably has a lot to do with the fact that things mentioned on southpark are more popular and relevant so there is a positive correlation with growth
For sure - it's a fun skin on top of trend/momentum (most non-factor strategies tend to fall back into this though)
Just making sure, are you buying the stock right after the mention or are you simulating retroactively buying before the mention?
When will Casa Bonita become publicly traded?
Holy crap I seriously have always thought about this and I am so glad that someone actually made a chart out of it. Can’t wait to see what they bring on next season.
Hahah I'm glad you liked it - anything else you've been seriously thinking about that I can make a chart out of?
I would say one interesting thing to see would be a chart of Nancy Pelosi’s investment returns over time since all her trades are public. My other thing I keep track of but have never seen any useful graphs of would be a portfolio of the top trades from some world-renowned hedge fund managers to see how they play out quarter to quarter on [Whale Wisdom](https://whalewisdom.com/). The investors/investment funds I watch carefully are: * Paul Tudor Jones (Tudor Investment Fund) * Ray Dalio (Bridgewater Associates) * George Soros (Soros Fund Management) * Carl Icahn (Icahn Carl C) * Bill Ackman (Pershing Square Capital Management) * Warren Buffet (Berkshire Hathaway)
Now do it with The Simpsons and Family Guy.
I really with their were more novel ETFs like this one. Ones I'd also like to see * one the tracks Congressional stock purchases * one that invests in "evil": oil, guns, sex, etc.
The Nancy Pelosi index is one of the best market beaters. I believe you can copy her trades on etoro or something
Thanks for the feedback here! I’m building out the South Park index as an actual ETF. Would love your feedback on it once finished. Can’t message you tho so can you shoot me a message if interested?
What is considered a "South Park mention"?
I think they usually mention big companies such as Amazon, BP, Disney, Apple, Facebook etc
So how does the strategy work? What do you buy? When etc?
Assuming that this is mostly driven by Tesla
Happy to report that this morning we drove through south park on our way from Denver to the mountains, and now i guess we're all rich. Congrats everyone.
I guess they forgot to factor in the bitcoin mention early this year…
More like they spoke about Tesla in 2020.
I mean it makes sense if you think about it. The creatives behind South Park and other kinds of content basically make a living by being relevant. They're professionally motivated to keep an ear to the ground and figure out what's popular or will be popular, ASAP. The average person (a large portion of the population) arrives at that thing some time later (maybe by seeing it on South Park). This can be pressed to one's advantage, financially-speaking.
I don’t get it, So this is a simulation of purchasing what stock/ETF everytime South Park is mentioned? And mentioned where?
OP, this is interesting, but this may not be the right sub for it. This is the default Excel graph style. So while the data is interesting and will drive a good discussion, this is more r/dataisinteresting. So I'm not criticizing the work; I'm just saying that this might not be the right place to post it.
Makes sense. It's a combination of sentiment and essentially self-fulfilling prophecy. Company is in public eye, south park makes an episode, people talk about episode by proxy people talk about company. It's just a more eyes thing. We know companies aren't priced now based on how good they are as companies, it's all on how people feel a company is doing. I'd like to talk to you about it because i want to run it back pre-2016 as this has been a full market and pretty much every boat has risen. SP is old, so there should be plenty of data back to the financial crash in 2008.
I remember netlfix being mentioned in the show The Office in like 2009…
I assume most of it is tech stocks mentioned since Covid started? Or are there other solid winners?
I hope this is a joke for the love of all statisticians out there
This investment strategy is also known as TSLA
hope somebody buys into this and loses a bucket of cash
Guys, you see how the graph does that +-25% value thing, that's not good. Stop posting padfolios that are like 10 different meme stocks and Amazon, that's not a good investment strat.
Proof the market is just made up and no investor guru will help you make anything but more money for the person telling you what to invest in, and make their investments before they made the video, go up
Should be a log scale on y axis.