8 ms·
Actually I think you have it backwards. The notion that traders consistently beat the market is hurting a lot of people. There are extremely few traders who bea
by blurker 5y ago
Actually I think you have it backwards. The notion that traders consistently beat the market is hurting a lot of people. There are extremely few traders who beat the market year over year. It becomes vanishingly fewer every year you add. Which is what you would expect for a system where luck plays a big role and nobody can actually predict the market.
Tldr; way too many people believe that a lot of people can beat the market and that is what actually hurts the most investors.
edit: spelling
- llampx 5y agoHow much do you know about the stock market and trading? No offense but I want to know whether I am speaking with someone who has been trading for a few years and has come to this conclusion or someone who read it on a headline somewhere.
- blurker 5y agoWhile I do have some experience, that's not really that relevant. I'm not saying this because of my own experience (which would be anecdotal evidence). It's based on actual market data, which is what is actually important for making a generalization like this. Many statistics show that overwhelmingly, active investors underperform indexes. And that is especially true year over year because a lot more people can get lucky a few times but they cannot consistently reproduce those results. One example of some data that shows this is the SPIVA score cards. Here's a nice page that explains it and presents some of the recent results: https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/SPIVA_scorecards https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/SPIVA_scorecards There is tons of other information if you just Google for it. When it comes to actual evidence of performance, the facts are pretty clear! How about you? Do you have any objective data to show otherwise?