2 ms·

Stock picking basically has random outcomes. Sure, you may have a few lucky wins in the short term. But over time, your losing bets tend to outnumber your winni

Stock picking basically has random outcomes. Sure, you may have a few lucky wins in the short term. But over time, your losing bets tend to outnumber your winning bets, and your returns experience what's called reversion to the mean. This phenomenon has been shown repeatedly in studies of trading behaviour among individual investors (e.g. [1] and [2]), who have been found to collectively destroy wealth for all other investors. Only an absolutely minuscule proportion of traders actually beat the market. As with any casino, there are winners and losers. But usually the house wins. [1] https://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/odean/papers%20current%20versions/justhowmuchdoindividualinvestorslose_rfs_2009.pdf https://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/odean/papers%20current%20v... [2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1386418113000190 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13864...

mancerayder 6y ago
Haha, random. Good one. The tech bull run in the last decade has been random? There's no getting through, here. Stop comparing traders and active funds in your study citations. That's not the benchmark. I'm not a fund (which has its own issues as it has to manage 100s of millions which is different than an account like one of ours), and I'm not a day trader/trader. Buying and holding stocks is hardly a zero sum game. You're confused with day trading and options trading which DOES have two sides of a bet. There's something about humanity that some folks here fail to understand when their noses are in the numbers. Are you trying to sell to me the idea that buying AAPL in the early 2000s was a random pick? I'm done here, all that's happening is I lose points as punishment for questioning orthodoxy.
- atombender 6y ago
  Buying AAPL in the early 2000s seems obvious now, but it was not obvious then. Prior to the iPhone, in the midst of a market dominated by the likes of Microsoft, a lot of people had very low expectations for Apple. The chances of AAPL beating companies like XOM or GE were not predictable at the time, and you can say the same today about any stock. At the time, you could of course argue for why AAPL would have enormous future growth, but it wouldn't be a prediction, but a bet.
  - mancerayder 6y ago
    Uncertain it was, but it is not the same as the word used before, random.

mancerayder 6y ago

Haha, random. Good one. The tech bull run in the last decade has been random? There's no getting through, here. Stop comparing traders and active funds in your study citations. That's not the benchmark. I'm not a fund (which has its own issues as it has to manage 100s of millions which is different than an account like one of ours), and I'm not a day trader/trader. Buying and holding stocks is hardly a zero sum game. You're confused with day trading and options trading which DOES have two sides of a bet. There's something about humanity that some folks here fail to understand when their noses are in the numbers. Are you trying to sell to me the idea that buying AAPL in the early 2000s was a random pick? I'm done here, all that's happening is I lose points as punishment for questioning orthodoxy.

atombender 6y ago
Buying AAPL in the early 2000s seems obvious now, but it was not obvious then. Prior to the iPhone, in the midst of a market dominated by the likes of Microsoft, a lot of people had very low expectations for Apple. The chances of AAPL beating companies like XOM or GE were not predictable at the time, and you can say the same today about any stock. At the time, you could of course argue for why AAPL would have enormous future growth, but it wouldn't be a prediction, but a bet.
- mancerayder 6y ago
  Uncertain it was, but it is not the same as the word used before, random.