4 ms·
So he beat one particular hedge fund, that hardly proves that "essentially no traders beat the performance of index funds long-term."
by yfhsjjskc 10y ago
So he beat one particular hedge fund, that hardly proves that "essentially no traders beat the performance of index funds long-term."
- emodendroket 10y agohttp://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/26/index-funds-trounce-actively-managed-funds-study.html http://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/26/index-funds-trounce-actively-... > Pity the active fund manager. > More dollars have flowed to index strategies that track a market benchmark, such as the S&P 500 index, partly because such funds typically have lower costs than active funds and more investors believe that stock-picking managers can't regularly beat the financial markets. > Now a new Morningstar study, released this week at the Morningstar Investment Conference, finds that actively managed funds lagged their passive counterparts across nearly all asset classes, especially over a 10-year period from 2004 to 2014.
- yfhsjjskc 10y agoThis evidence all suffers from the problem that you are trying to prove a very difficult claim. Information about averages won't help you here.
- emodendroket 10y ago"Essentially nobody" is admittedly not well-defined, but I don't take it to mean that a handful of guys doing better would disprove it (and in any case have trouble finding any data points in favor of the opposite position).
- yfhsjjskc 10y agoI claim that the top 20% (as specified in the headline) could not be reasonably described as "essentially nobody". And the article you linked two posts ago found that more than 20% of funds beat the market.
- emodendroket 10y agoThat's over the course of a year, which is not what I would consider a long-term measure. Over the course of the year, sure, you could easily have people who beat the market.