4 ms·

In the short term, investing may indeed be more luck than talent, however this article strives to imply that market-beating results are essentially pure luck, w

In the short term, investing may indeed be more luck than talent, however this article strives to imply that market-beating results are essentially pure luck, which simply isn't the case over time. Over time, the best investors will always wind up with market-beating returns, and the worst investors will always wind up with market-trailing returns. Like any game with significant short-term variance, those with the greatest skill might not be readily apparent from a small sample size of results - I might beat Phil Ivey for a day or even a month at a poker table. But if we play long enough, I literally have no chance of being ahead of him. The same holds true for investors. Articles like this seem like a cop-out for failed investors, and perhaps an argument for using index funds. If it's all luck, then your own failings aren't your fault. But that view doesn't apply to most areas of life, including and perhaps especially when it comes to investing decisions.

matt4077 10y ago
You're just asserting, i. e. "which simply isn't the case over time". The article build a model that appears reasonable, and from which follows that any talent allowing returns above 1% of the market would lead to a wealth distribution different from the one observed in reality.
- downandout 10y ago
  Since you don't like my comment, if you read some of the other comments in this thread, you'll see that the model built in this article actually isn't reasonable at all (as I said). A small percentage of investors have achieved results that aren't possible through pure luck. So you are, in a word, wrong. Thanks for the downvote though.
rat87 10y ago
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/03/04/469247400/episode-688-brilliant-vs-boring http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/03/04/469247400/episo... > In 2006, Warren Buffett posed a challenge. He bet that the smartest hedge fund managers out there couldn't beat the world's simplest, most brainless investment. In this show, we tell you who's winning. (index funds)

matt4077 10y ago

You're just asserting, i. e. "which simply isn't the case over time". The article build a model that appears reasonable, and from which follows that any talent allowing returns above 1% of the market would lead to a wealth distribution different from the one observed in reality.

downandout 10y ago
Since you don't like my comment, if you read some of the other comments in this thread, you'll see that the model built in this article actually isn't reasonable at all (as I said). A small percentage of investors have achieved results that aren't possible through pure luck. So you are, in a word, wrong. Thanks for the downvote though.

rat87 10y ago

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/03/04/469247400/episode-688-brilliant-vs-boring http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/03/04/469247400/episo... > In 2006, Warren Buffett posed a challenge. He bet that the smartest hedge fund managers out there couldn't beat the world's simplest, most brainless investment. In this show, we tell you who's winning. (index funds)