3 ms·

Keep saying this and watch your peers assets balloon in value. There’s really nothing to argue about, spreading this “I can’t beat the market mantra” is bad for

Keep saying this and watch your peers assets balloon in value. There’s really nothing to argue about, spreading this “I can’t beat the market mantra” is bad for everyone. Also asserting that tech, which is essentially the largest growth area won’t keep growing is a radical opinion

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
gruez 5y ago
>Keep saying this and watch your peers assets balloon in value. There’s really nothing to argue about, spreading this “I can’t beat the market mantra” is bad for everyone. While I don't doubt that you could beat the market given enough effort, I'm skeptical that you can trivially beat the market with a strategy as simple as "buy tech stocks". I'll invoke the efficient market hypothesis here: if tech stocks are expected to grow 20% but non-tech stocks are only expected to grow 10%, why would anyone buy non-tech stocks? Wouldn't everyone bid up the price of tech stocks so that their returns would only be 10%?
- greatpostman 5y ago
  Dude I used to work at a hedge fund, the whole efficient market hypothesis isn’t what you think, and it’s insane to think it means you need to buy every single stock. You’re just going to lose a bunch of money investing this way
  - gruez 5y ago
    >Dude I used to work at a hedge fund, the whole efficient market hypothesis isn’t what you think Oh? Please elaborate. >and it’s insane to think it means you need to buy every single stock. US "total market" only have about 2000-3000 stocks. >You’re just going to lose a bunch of money investing this way How? By buying losers? By wasting money on transaction fees?
    - kqr 5y ago
      Only 2000–3000 but they're so strongly correlated you could practically diversify just as much with less than 20–30, for 1/100 of the transaction costs.
AlexandrB 5y ago
I think what's getting increasingly difficult is identifying what a "tech" stock is. Companies like Uber and AirBnb blur the line as their innovations are mostly not the silicon and CS kind but are about economics and working around regulations. It's easy to call Google a "tech" stock, but what about Netflix? At this point streaming technology is mostly commodified. Is Netflix a tech company or an entertainment company? I think a strong argument could be made for the latter. So saying that you should invest in "tech" stocks is increasingly ambiguous.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

gruez 5y ago

>Keep saying this and watch your peers assets balloon in value. There’s really nothing to argue about, spreading this “I can’t beat the market mantra” is bad for everyone. While I don't doubt that you could beat the market given enough effort, I'm skeptical that you can trivially beat the market with a strategy as simple as "buy tech stocks". I'll invoke the efficient market hypothesis here: if tech stocks are expected to grow 20% but non-tech stocks are only expected to grow 10%, why would anyone buy non-tech stocks? Wouldn't everyone bid up the price of tech stocks so that their returns would only be 10%?

greatpostman 5y ago
Dude I used to work at a hedge fund, the whole efficient market hypothesis isn’t what you think, and it’s insane to think it means you need to buy every single stock. You’re just going to lose a bunch of money investing this way
- gruez 5y ago
  >Dude I used to work at a hedge fund, the whole efficient market hypothesis isn’t what you think Oh? Please elaborate. >and it’s insane to think it means you need to buy every single stock. US "total market" only have about 2000-3000 stocks. >You’re just going to lose a bunch of money investing this way How? By buying losers? By wasting money on transaction fees?
  - kqr 5y ago
    Only 2000–3000 but they're so strongly correlated you could practically diversify just as much with less than 20–30, for 1/100 of the transaction costs.

AlexandrB 5y ago

I think what's getting increasingly difficult is identifying what a "tech" stock is. Companies like Uber and AirBnb blur the line as their innovations are mostly not the silicon and CS kind but are about economics and working around regulations. It's easy to call Google a "tech" stock, but what about Netflix? At this point streaming technology is mostly commodified. Is Netflix a tech company or an entertainment company? I think a strong argument could be made for the latter. So saying that you should invest in "tech" stocks is increasingly ambiguous.