3 ms·
I'm curious, given that I've heard lots of of amatur groups and even monkeys do better than the pros is all that like fake propaganda to throw us off that the p
by greggman 12y ago
I'm curious, given that I've heard lots of of amatur groups and even monkeys do better than the pros is all that like fake propaganda to throw us off that the pros really are better because of their inside knowledge or is it that only some of the pros have this knowledge so in aggregate it appears the pros don't benefit from it or something else? Or am I conflating something I shouldn't?
- cheald 12y agoAmateurs tend to be much worse at limiting risk, so while they can win bigger, their drawdown/losses tend to be much higher than the professionals, too. If you want to see how good a trader someone is, look at how much they lose in a bad market rather than how much they make in a good market.
- pash 12y agoThe goal of most money-managers is to make themselves rich, and for the most part they succeed.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- bobbles 12y agoIf you look at something like a mutual fund, they will say something like X% performance over X years. BUT what they also do is remove poorly performing positions from their portfolio. As they are not part of the portfolio they can avoid reporting on the performance, so you don't necessarily get to see the full picture of how their decisions affect their investors.
- prostoalex 12y agoThe random selection (group of monkey) works well during the periods of economic upheaval, when smallcap and microcap do well, and doesn't do as much during the economic downturn. Random selection tends to bias towards smallcap/microcap, as the sheer quantity of those companies is higher.