4 ms·
> There exist funds which have annualized a two-sigma return over SPY for over 20 years the problem is that _many_ funds have positive returns until, suddenly,
by riffraff 6y ago
> There exist funds which have annualized a two-sigma return over SPY for over 20 years
the problem is that _many_ funds have positive returns until, suddenly, they don't. It's basically as hard to pick a fund or money manager for the long run as it is to pick a stock.
Consider Neil Woodford[0], he beat the market for over twenty years and was considered the best investor in Britain. Then started a new set of funds, which went terribly. It'd have been reasonable to let him manage your money, but it would still not have worked out.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Woodford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Woodford
- fractionalhare 6y agoThat doesn't refute the mathematics demonstrating that people can reliably do this with skill rather than luck. Eventually Brady's not going to be able to play football professionally either. But he still does, and when he can't do it anymore that won't indict his professional record.
- pedrocr 6y agoThe difference is that our ability to tell if Brady was a good football player 10 years ago doesn't depend on his results today. Whereas a fund manager can turn out to have had a bad strategy all along whose gains are only wiped out after many years of apparent good performance.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- fractionalhare 6y agoHow many actual examples do you have of the same funds blowing up which outperformed for decades? Buffett outperformed SPY for most of his 60 year career. Do you think he doesn't know what he's doing, and it was all luck, just because Berkshire Hathaway isn't doing as well as it used to?