S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 1 It is ironic that bogleheads brought up such cliche that 80% (or whatever
percentage) MM lose to index and at the same time use market-cap weighted
index.
What about AUM weighted active MM performance? I am sure the index will
still has tiny little edges, but the margin will be significantly smaller.
How about throw out high-fees and closet index funds? Vangaurd's active
funds anyone?
An average Joe trained tennis for a few days can say his tennis skill is
better than 80% or maybe 90% world population, is he a good tennis player? |
k***n
发帖数: 3158 | 2 an average Joe's expectation is to be above average, which index
funds certainly meet
the number of 80% is questionable anyway and I would not use it
in the arguement
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: It is ironic that bogleheads brought up such cliche that 80% (or whatever
: percentage) MM lose to index and at the same time use market-cap weighted
: index.
: What about AUM weighted active MM performance? I am sure the index will
: still has tiny little edges, but the margin will be significantly smaller.
: How about throw out high-fees and closet index funds? Vangaurd's active
: funds anyone?
: An average Joe trained tennis for a few days can say his tennis skill is
: better than 80% or maybe 90% world population, is he a good tennis player?
|
t***n
发帖数: 546 | 3 如果每个人都必须打tennis的话，能beat 80%的population不错了。
当然80%值得商榷，大于50%是肯定的。
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: It is ironic that bogleheads brought up such cliche that 80% (or whatever
: percentage) MM lose to index and at the same time use market-cap weighted
: index.
: What about AUM weighted active MM performance? I am sure the index will
: still has tiny little edges, but the margin will be significantly smaller.
: How about throw out high-fees and closet index funds? Vangaurd's active
: funds anyone?
: An average Joe trained tennis for a few days can say his tennis skill is
: better than 80% or maybe 90% world population, is he a good tennis player?
|
E******w
发帖数: 2616 | 4 本青蛙坚决不碰任何active managed mutual fund。涨上天也和我无关。这些mutual
fund别说80%不能beat index，只要你明白了其中的猫腻，说90%我都信。
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: It is ironic that bogleheads brought up such cliche that 80% (or whatever
: percentage) MM lose to index and at the same time use market-cap weighted
: index.
: What about AUM weighted active MM performance? I am sure the index will
: still has tiny little edges, but the margin will be significantly smaller.
: How about throw out high-fees and closet index funds? Vangaurd's active
: funds anyone?
: An average Joe trained tennis for a few days can say his tennis skill is
: better than 80% or maybe 90% world population, is he a good tennis player?
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 5 The key is what you are compraing with.
Similarly, you can throw out MFs with high-fees and closet-index funds.
【在 t***n 的大作中提到】
: 如果每个人都必须打tennis的话，能beat 80%的population不错了。
: 当然80%值得商榷，大于50%是肯定的。
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 6 An average Joe who spend his DD may not act like a monkey throwing dart at a
borad with 5000+ MF names, regardless if they are equal-weighted or AUM-
weighted.
【在 k***n 的大作中提到】
: an average Joe's expectation is to be above average, which index
: funds certainly meet
: the number of 80% is questionable anyway and I would not use it
: in the arguement
|
k***n
发帖数: 3158 | 7 S&P 500 index includes it all
every investment has its reasons behind it, after DD or not
some succeed and some fail
one has to respect the long term fact that index funds get the average
and that result is above average considering fees. this is just simple math
a
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: An average Joe who spend his DD may not act like a monkey throwing dart at a
: borad with 5000+ MF names, regardless if they are equal-weighted or AUM-
: weighted.
|
s*****e
发帖数: 21415 | 8 所以，理论上说你自己买index的500 member，track index，连fee也省了。
不是更好？呵呵
math
【在 k***n 的大作中提到】
: S&P 500 index includes it all
: every investment has its reasons behind it, after DD or not
: some succeed and some fail
: one has to respect the long term fact that index funds get the average
: and that result is above average considering fees. this is just simple math
:
: a
|
k***n
发帖数: 3158 | 9 DCA
it means you need to buy 500 stocks every month
and you need to rebalance when the list changes
【在 s*****e 的大作中提到】
: 所以，理论上说你自己买index的500 member，track index，连fee也省了。
: 不是更好？呵呵
:
: math
|
s*****e
发帖数: 21415 | 10 it is a pretty trivial service isn't it ?
呵呵。。
【在 k***n 的大作中提到】
: DCA
: it means you need to buy 500 stocks every month
: and you need to rebalance when the list changes
|
|
|
t***n
发帖数: 546 | 11 人收费也低啊。比如Vanguard，VFIAX， 10K起，收费0.05%。
算你有钱人，投1M，人家也只收你500一年。
你试试自己搞500支股票每天rebalance？不谈人力，交易费都天上去了。还是500一年
省心吧。
【在 s*****e 的大作中提到】
: it is a pretty trivial service isn't it ?
: 呵呵。。
|
g******o
发帖数: 4042 | 12 那哥们在说反话？
【在 t***n 的大作中提到】
: 人收费也低啊。比如Vanguard，VFIAX， 10K起，收费0.05%。
: 算你有钱人，投1M，人家也只收你500一年。
: 你试试自己搞500支股票每天rebalance？不谈人力，交易费都天上去了。还是500一年
: 省心吧。
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 13 Again, above average, what average? equal-weight average of the mutual fund
universe, or the selected subset after throwing out high-fees and closet
index funds?
math
【在 k***n 的大作中提到】
: S&P 500 index includes it all
: every investment has its reasons behind it, after DD or not
: some succeed and some fail
: one has to respect the long term fact that index funds get the average
: and that result is above average considering fees. this is just simple math
:
: a
|
k***n
发帖数: 3158 | 14 the average of the market this particular index represents
fund
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: Again, above average, what average? equal-weight average of the mutual fund
: universe, or the selected subset after throwing out high-fees and closet
: index funds?
:
: math
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 15 Retail investors do not directly invest in market, they invested in (mostly)
MFs.
【在 k***n 的大作中提到】
: the average of the market this particular index represents
:
: fund
|
g******o
发帖数: 4042 | 16 那么大盘指数和覆盖其他类型股票的指数怎么比？
市场平均，这是个虚无的概念，什么市场？市场很大，甚至不光是股票市场
【在 k***n 的大作中提到】
: the average of the market this particular index represents
:
: fund
|
k***n
发帖数: 3158 | 17
you should have included other indices, such as bond, commodities and
so on, in the question. this is a question of asset allocation.
I have never said that investing in S&P 500 index by DCA can beat 50%
of all the investors out there.
I have repeatly said you should compare apple to apple
I have said "the market that particular index represents", not the entire
investment market. Again, you can call it whatever you want if you don't
like the term "average".
【在 g******o 的大作中提到】
: 那么大盘指数和覆盖其他类型股票的指数怎么比？
: 市场平均，这是个虚无的概念，什么市场？市场很大，甚至不光是股票市场
|
s********n
发帖数: 1962 | 18 这就是抬杠了。这个统计数字定义是非常清楚地：
80% actively managed fund cannot beat SP500 over long run.
我们只在说股票市场，别的市场另当别论。
【在 g******o 的大作中提到】
: 那么大盘指数和覆盖其他类型股票的指数怎么比？
: 市场平均，这是个虚无的概念，什么市场？市场很大，甚至不光是股票市场
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 19 So what? 80% world population cannot beat a 50-yr old average joe who only
trained tennis for a week.
【在 s********n 的大作中提到】
: 这就是抬杠了。这个统计数字定义是非常清楚地：
: 80% actively managed fund cannot beat SP500 over long run.
: 我们只在说股票市场，别的市场另当别论。
|
b****n
发帖数: 993 | 20 “80% actively managed fund cannot beat SP500 over long run”
这个论述里面，“80%”代表的是一些经过高度训练的基金经理们，根本不是你例子里
面80%的没有经过训练的普通人。这个例子你已经用了好几次，我一直没有明白其中的
逻辑何在。
如果有个方法，让人不用什么训练就能够在打网球上击败80%的普通人，另外一种方法
就是通过哪怕是几个星期的训练而打败80%的普通人，那应该选哪个呢？再进一步，如
果一个方法让人不用怎么训练就能击败80%的职业选手，那还有什么必要去刻苦训练呢？
投资领域最ironic的事情就是，这样一种看似不合常理的现象（不用怎么训练还能打败
大多数专业选手）还真存在。大多数不懂投资的人是很难相信这个事实的，而这也正是
很多人还能在金融服务业混口饭吃的原因。
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: So what? 80% world population cannot beat a 50-yr old average joe who only
: trained tennis for a week.
|
|
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 21 The logic behind it is it is as absurd to use the whole MF universe as
comparison.
呢？
【在 b****n 的大作中提到】
: “80% actively managed fund cannot beat SP500 over long run”
: 这个论述里面，“80%”代表的是一些经过高度训练的基金经理们，根本不是你例子里
: 面80%的没有经过训练的普通人。这个例子你已经用了好几次，我一直没有明白其中的
: 逻辑何在。
: 如果有个方法，让人不用什么训练就能够在打网球上击败80%的普通人，另外一种方法
: 就是通过哪怕是几个星期的训练而打败80%的普通人，那应该选哪个呢？再进一步，如
: 果一个方法让人不用怎么训练就能击败80%的职业选手，那还有什么必要去刻苦训练呢？
: 投资领域最ironic的事情就是，这样一种看似不合常理的现象（不用怎么训练还能打败
: 大多数专业选手）还真存在。大多数不懂投资的人是很难相信这个事实的，而这也正是
: 很多人还能在金融服务业混口饭吃的原因。
|
b****n
发帖数: 993 | 22 首先，就算以整个基金宇宙作为比较背景，这个宇宙里面的经理们也还是经过高度训练
的，而不是你例子里面80%的没有任何训练的普通人。所以你的打网球的例子不适合用
来做这样的类比。
第二，如果不以整个基金宇宙作为背景，那就要求投资者要具备选择优秀基金经理的能
力，而这一点也已经被证明基本不可能。
没有人说真正理解并且能够击败市场的经理不存在。问题时，作为一个普通人，甚至是
很懂投资的人，你能事前选出他们吗？事实上，如果你能选出来的话，你自己就已经具
备理解并击败市场的能力。
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: The logic behind it is it is as absurd to use the whole MF universe as
: comparison.
:
: 呢？
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 23 No need to be that difficult, I have said many times, throw out high-fees (e
.g., 20% more than categary average), and closet-index fund (no point to
invest in a high fee index fund), then you have a much smaller subset.
Vanguard actively managed funds demonstrated what they can do, as a good
example. They do not have many star managers (PRIMECAP may be the exception)
, low-fees carried them.
【在 b****n 的大作中提到】
: 首先，就算以整个基金宇宙作为比较背景，这个宇宙里面的经理们也还是经过高度训练
: 的，而不是你例子里面80%的没有任何训练的普通人。所以你的打网球的例子不适合用
: 来做这样的类比。
: 第二，如果不以整个基金宇宙作为背景，那就要求投资者要具备选择优秀基金经理的能
: 力，而这一点也已经被证明基本不可能。
: 没有人说真正理解并且能够击败市场的经理不存在。问题时，作为一个普通人，甚至是
: 很懂投资的人，你能事前选出他们吗？事实上，如果你能选出来的话，你自己就已经具
: 备理解并击败市场的能力。
|
b****n
发帖数: 993 | 24 嗯，多谢你提醒这个。我一直在想着有时间看看vanguard那些active funds。
(e
exception)
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: No need to be that difficult, I have said many times, throw out high-fees (e
: .g., 20% more than categary average), and closet-index fund (no point to
: invest in a high fee index fund), then you have a much smaller subset.
: Vanguard actively managed funds demonstrated what they can do, as a good
: example. They do not have many star managers (PRIMECAP may be the exception)
: , low-fees carried them.
|
k***n
发帖数: 3158 | 25 I dont know how accurate the number of 80% is
even it is, people are left with 20% chance to beat the market
it is indeed not that difficult, lol
as an active investor myself, all I want to say is I understant that
there is a good chance that I will be outperformed by those passive
investors who do not do as much DD as me, but I will try my best to
beat them.
A good financial advisor should disclose this to his clients that there
exists such a passive investment strategy with very low cost and it can
beat most of the actively managed funds. It is upto the clients themselves
which way they want to go. Simply throwing the high fee active
funds to the clients, IMO, is not what I expect to see from a good financial
advisor.
(e
exception)
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: No need to be that difficult, I have said many times, throw out high-fees (e
: .g., 20% more than categary average), and closet-index fund (no point to
: invest in a high fee index fund), then you have a much smaller subset.
: Vanguard actively managed funds demonstrated what they can do, as a good
: example. They do not have many star managers (PRIMECAP may be the exception)
: , low-fees carried them.
|
s*****e
发帖数: 21415 | 26 主要原因是active managed fund有fee，比passive要高不少。
所有active managed fund collectively，他们的alpha是一个零和游戏，考虑到fee，
就是一个负和游戏。
所以after fees, 80% lose to index并不奇怪。
我猜测，如果没有fee，可能50% win against index, 50% lose to index。
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: It is ironic that bogleheads brought up such cliche that 80% (or whatever
: percentage) MM lose to index and at the same time use market-cap weighted
: index.
: What about AUM weighted active MM performance? I am sure the index will
: still has tiny little edges, but the margin will be significantly smaller.
: How about throw out high-fees and closet index funds? Vangaurd's active
: funds anyone?
: An average Joe trained tennis for a few days can say his tennis skill is
: better than 80% or maybe 90% world population, is he a good tennis player?
|
D*******a
发帖数: 3688 | 27 nice insight.
【在 s*****e 的大作中提到】
: 主要原因是active managed fund有fee，比passive要高不少。
: 所有active managed fund collectively，他们的alpha是一个零和游戏，考虑到fee，
: 就是一个负和游戏。
: 所以after fees, 80% lose to index并不奇怪。
: 我猜测，如果没有fee，可能50% win against index, 50% lose to index。
|
s********y
发帖数: 3811 | 28 i am not sure if the tennis player analogy is accurate here.
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: It is ironic that bogleheads brought up such cliche that 80% (or whatever
: percentage) MM lose to index and at the same time use market-cap weighted
: index.
: What about AUM weighted active MM performance? I am sure the index will
: still has tiny little edges, but the margin will be significantly smaller.
: How about throw out high-fees and closet index funds? Vangaurd's active
: funds anyone?
: An average Joe trained tennis for a few days can say his tennis skill is
: better than 80% or maybe 90% world population, is he a good tennis player?
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 29 Well not necessarily. For example, in a prolonged bear market, actvie
managed funds could collectively raise cash and sell equities to ...whom,
yes index funds investors, assuming indexer are all B&H, DCA type of guys.
【在 s*****e 的大作中提到】
: 主要原因是active managed fund有fee，比passive要高不少。
: 所有active managed fund collectively，他们的alpha是一个零和游戏，考虑到fee，
: 就是一个负和游戏。
: 所以after fees, 80% lose to index并不奇怪。
: 我猜测，如果没有fee，可能50% win against index, 50% lose to index。
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 30 How and why?
【在 s********y 的大作中提到】
: i am not sure if the tennis player analogy is accurate here.
|
|
|
s*****e
发帖数: 21415 | 31 assuming you buy and hold active funds as well, your argument has no effect
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: Well not necessarily. For example, in a prolonged bear market, actvie
: managed funds could collectively raise cash and sell equities to ...whom,
: yes index funds investors, assuming indexer are all B&H, DCA type of guys.
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 32 Your fund lose less than index because of cash position and rising cash
position.
effect
【在 s*****e 的大作中提到】
: assuming you buy and hold active funds as well, your argument has no effect
|
t***n
发帖数: 546 | 33 这个谁知道了？没准人indexer抄了底，你还hold cash在看着呢。
跌的时候该割肉还是加仓谁也说不准。
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: Your fund lose less than index because of cash position and rising cash
: position.
:
: effect
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 34 I am refuting the concept that active-managed funds collectively cannot have
positive alpha even before fees mathematically. It is simple math, and
they could.
【在 t***n 的大作中提到】
: 这个谁知道了？没准人indexer抄了底，你还hold cash在看着呢。
: 跌的时候该割肉还是加仓谁也说不准。
|
s********n
发帖数: 1962 | 35 You are assuming you know when it's a bear market and when it's
a bull market in advance, while indexers assume you can never know.
Look, don't assume others are stupid. Do you really think if an
indexer knows for sure the market will drop, he/she will still
buy into any index?
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: Well not necessarily. For example, in a prolonged bear market, actvie
: managed funds could collectively raise cash and sell equities to ...whom,
: yes index funds investors, assuming indexer are all B&H, DCA type of guys.
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 36 I suggest you re-read my post before jump to conclusions, and stop making
assumption on me as you know absolutely nothing about me.
I am addressing the claim that skydive and others made that (mathematically)
active managed funds collectivety cannot have positive alpha because zoro-
sum game. My view is they collectively can, and yes mathematically, even
they compete against one another and I explained why and give an example,
whether they can achieve that goal on a AUM-weighted basis in realy life is
another matter. It has nothing to do with if I or whoever know or do not
know when bear market or bull market begin.
My personal opinion is they could have positive alpha collectively, just not
after fees. Unfortunately there is no such AUM-weighted comparison studies
as I know of. Academia in the index camp are either intellectually lazy,
imcompetent, or dishonest so nobody bother to do a reasonably fair
comparison.
【在 s********n 的大作中提到】
: You are assuming you know when it's a bear market and when it's
: a bull market in advance, while indexers assume you can never know.
: Look, don't assume others are stupid. Do you really think if an
: indexer knows for sure the market will drop, he/she will still
: buy into any index?
|
k***n
发帖数: 3158 | 37
not
this is the end of the story. the higher fees over long run kill all the
noises that the actively managed funds might outperform or underperform
against index funds in a certain short/long period of time.
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: I suggest you re-read my post before jump to conclusions, and stop making
: assumption on me as you know absolutely nothing about me.
: I am addressing the claim that skydive and others made that (mathematically)
: active managed funds collectivety cannot have positive alpha because zoro-
: sum game. My view is they collectively can, and yes mathematically, even
: they compete against one another and I explained why and give an example,
: whether they can achieve that goal on a AUM-weighted basis in realy life is
: another matter. It has nothing to do with if I or whoever know or do not
: know when bear market or bull market begin.
: My personal opinion is they could have positive alpha collectively, just not
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 38 Go with low fees, better yet, low fees, low AUM, low turnover and
concentrated portfolio where most likely you can get excessive alpha.
Not a call for actively managed funds, but if one wants to go that path with
strong reasons, it is that best shot for that path.
【在 k***n 的大作中提到】
:
: not
: this is the end of the story. the higher fees over long run kill all the
: noises that the actively managed funds might outperform or underperform
: against index funds in a certain short/long period of time.
|
s********n
发帖数: 1962 | 39 hehe, I don't know who you are and I don't know what you are
trying to say. But I do see the following words from you
"in a prolonged bear market, active managed funds could collectively raise
cash and sell equities to ...whom, yes index funds investors, assuming
indexer are all B&H, DCA type of guys"
And apparently you assumed you or the active fund manager know
when it's a bear market in advance.
mathematically)
is
not
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: I suggest you re-read my post before jump to conclusions, and stop making
: assumption on me as you know absolutely nothing about me.
: I am addressing the claim that skydive and others made that (mathematically)
: active managed funds collectivety cannot have positive alpha because zoro-
: sum game. My view is they collectively can, and yes mathematically, even
: they compete against one another and I explained why and give an example,
: whether they can achieve that goal on a AUM-weighted basis in realy life is
: another matter. It has nothing to do with if I or whoever know or do not
: know when bear market or bull market begin.
: My personal opinion is they could have positive alpha collectively, just not
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 40 Way to build a strawman and then knock it down, great job.
Why knowing a bear market in advance for the actively managed fund
collectively is necessary for my example to be true? Or you just try to
distract the discussion and hijack my thread.
【在 s********n 的大作中提到】
: hehe, I don't know who you are and I don't know what you are
: trying to say. But I do see the following words from you
: "in a prolonged bear market, active managed funds could collectively raise
: cash and sell equities to ...whom, yes index funds investors, assuming
: indexer are all B&H, DCA type of guys"
: And apparently you assumed you or the active fund manager know
: when it's a bear market in advance.
:
: mathematically)
: is
|
|
|
k***n
发帖数: 3158 | 41 everyone can have a judgement regarding
"where most likely you can get excessive alpha"
summing up them all, it is still a zero-sum game.
as much as I am bullish on gold/silver sector, you have JP Morgan shorting
them massively. Someone has to lose.
with
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: Go with low fees, better yet, low fees, low AUM, low turnover and
: concentrated portfolio where most likely you can get excessive alpha.
: Not a call for actively managed funds, but if one wants to go that path with
: strong reasons, it is that best shot for that path.
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 42 Who are them? The funds with low fees, low turn-overs, not index huggers,
and low AUMs collectively?
【在 k***n 的大作中提到】
: everyone can have a judgement regarding
: "where most likely you can get excessive alpha"
: summing up them all, it is still a zero-sum game.
: as much as I am bullish on gold/silver sector, you have JP Morgan shorting
: them massively. Someone has to lose.
:
: with
|
k***n
发帖数: 3158 | 43 "them" refers to everyone playing "concentrated portfolio where most likely
you can get excessive alpha"
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: Who are them? The funds with low fees, low turn-overs, not index huggers,
: and low AUMs collectively?
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 44 There are actually some acdemic studies on that "active share" topic, but I
will put my emphasize on low cost, low turn-over, and low AUM, about in that
order.
likely
【在 k***n 的大作中提到】
: "them" refers to everyone playing "concentrated portfolio where most likely
: you can get excessive alpha"
|
s*******d
发帖数: 126 | 45 "but I will try my best to beat them."
I am not going to comment on how difficult it is to do what you want to do.
Let's just think about how an impossible thing it is just to *figure* out,
number-wise, what it is that you want to beat.
Without creating a clear picture on what "them" looks like, the phrase "beat
them" makes no sense.
It is a daunting task, and here are some (and possibly more) things that you
must do in order to create such a bench for comparison.
* For every new dollar you invest in your own way, you figure out
hypothetically what the corresponding index funds amount it purchases;
(fortunately, you won't have to figure out the would-be impact on the
hypothetical bench investment when you sell stocks, since passive investors
don't buy and sell).
* keep track of the growth curve of the cumulative purchases;
* figure out what are the quarterly dividends or EOY distributions and the
corresponding impact they have on the total investment shares.
* figure out what happens when the would-be rebalance happens (something a
passive invest would do every so often, say, six months).
* figure out, what are short term, long term capital gains, trading losses (
if any), at the end of the year, in order to calculate the federal/state
taxes implications on your bottom line (1040). This by itself is pretty hard
to do since you have to take out your real investment gains/losses on your
tax returns and then supplement the would-be numbers.
And of course, you need to do the same thing to your own way of investing,
to closely track your own returns, buying and selling, fees, taxes,
cumulative sums that dynamically change over time.
Then you compare, after many, many, many years.
My bet is that you won't beat passively index-funds based investment.
【在 k***n 的大作中提到】
: I dont know how accurate the number of 80% is
: even it is, people are left with 20% chance to beat the market
: it is indeed not that difficult, lol
: as an active investor myself, all I want to say is I understant that
: there is a good chance that I will be outperformed by those passive
: investors who do not do as much DD as me, but I will try my best to
: beat them.
: A good financial advisor should disclose this to his clients that there
: exists such a passive investment strategy with very low cost and it can
: beat most of the actively managed funds. It is upto the clients themselves
|
k***n
发帖数: 3158 | 46 your bet does not matter to me
yes I have to wait till the end to see what the return is and compare
but so far I have been beating index to a mile
and my calls are on this board and stock board to back it up
passive investment gets average return. that's it. Saying nobody can
beat it over long term is nonsense.
.
beat
you
【在 s*******d 的大作中提到】
: "but I will try my best to beat them."
: I am not going to comment on how difficult it is to do what you want to do.
: Let's just think about how an impossible thing it is just to *figure* out,
: number-wise, what it is that you want to beat.
: Without creating a clear picture on what "them" looks like, the phrase "beat
: them" makes no sense.
: It is a daunting task, and here are some (and possibly more) things that you
: must do in order to create such a bench for comparison.
: * For every new dollar you invest in your own way, you figure out
: hypothetically what the corresponding index funds amount it purchases;
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 47
.
It cuts both ways.
【在 s*******d 的大作中提到】
: "but I will try my best to beat them."
: I am not going to comment on how difficult it is to do what you want to do.
: Let's just think about how an impossible thing it is just to *figure* out,
: number-wise, what it is that you want to beat.
: Without creating a clear picture on what "them" looks like, the phrase "beat
: them" makes no sense.
: It is a daunting task, and here are some (and possibly more) things that you
: must do in order to create such a bench for comparison.
: * For every new dollar you invest in your own way, you figure out
: hypothetically what the corresponding index funds amount it purchases;
|
s********y
发帖数: 3811 | 48 why not recommend some low fee/turn-over & high perf funds to us? if they
are good, i will sell my index fund tomorrow.
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: Who are them? The funds with low fees, low turn-overs, not index huggers,
: and low AUMs collectively?
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 49 As a general rule, I do not recommend actively managed funds that I hold,
simply because I have no reason to help them to grow AUM.
I guess Vanguard actively managed funds are good place to start with.
【在 s********y 的大作中提到】
: why not recommend some low fee/turn-over & high perf funds to us? if they
: are good, i will sell my index fund tomorrow.
|
s********y
发帖数: 3811 | 50 suddenly mute about concrete fund selection after such a windy argument?
i guess case closed then.
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: As a general rule, I do not recommend actively managed funds that I hold,
: simply because I have no reason to help them to grow AUM.
: I guess Vanguard actively managed funds are good place to start with.
|
|
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 51 I did not expect to meet someone in virtual internet world showing certain
characteristic depicted in Lu Xun's only novella. I guess I was wrong.
【在 s********y 的大作中提到】
: suddenly mute about concrete fund selection after such a windy argument?
: i guess case closed then.
|
s********y
发帖数: 3811 | 52 not sure what you were trying to say. apparently one cannot make a strong
argument without backing it up with evidence.
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: I did not expect to meet someone in virtual internet world showing certain
: characteristic depicted in Lu Xun's only novella. I guess I was wrong.
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 53 Never mind.
The evidence are Vanguard actively managed funds.
【在 s********y 的大作中提到】
: not sure what you were trying to say. apparently one cannot make a strong
: argument without backing it up with evidence.
|
s********y
发帖数: 3811 | 54 i wish you gave me other examples. isn't it ironic that john bogle was the
founder of vangard?
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: Never mind.
: The evidence are Vanguard actively managed funds.
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 55 Why? Jack uses both index and actively managed funds, such as Wellington, he
also think bond index does not make sense, at least now. I do not find
anything ironic here.
I kinda suspect VG actively managed funds drive some of his acolytes nuts.
【在 s********y 的大作中提到】
: i wish you gave me other examples. isn't it ironic that john bogle was the
: founder of vangard?
|
s********y
发帖数: 3811 | 56 let's face it, actively managed fund is side dish for vanguard. bogle just
talked about "two dates" in fund history. http://johncbogle.com/wordpress/category/recent-speeches/
seems to me that u have ur own definition of mf. that's ok. it makes ur
argument skewed though if u insist using it to compare with index funds.
he
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: Why? Jack uses both index and actively managed funds, such as Wellington, he
: also think bond index does not make sense, at least now. I do not find
: anything ironic here.
: I kinda suspect VG actively managed funds drive some of his acolytes nuts.
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 57 It is too bad that VG actively managed funds outperform, and the fact in
itself drives some ideologues nuts.
And I stand by my statement that any research which is not AUM weighted,
include high ER and closet-index funds are intellectually lazy and dishonest.
【在 s********y 的大作中提到】
: let's face it, actively managed fund is side dish for vanguard. bogle just
: talked about "two dates" in fund history. http://johncbogle.com/wordpress/category/recent-speeches/
: seems to me that u have ur own definition of mf. that's ok. it makes ur
: argument skewed though if u insist using it to compare with index funds.
:
: he
|
s********y
发帖数: 3811 | 58 it drives no one here nuts. there are many studies that index funds
outperform actively managed funds with evidence of many years' data. if you
pick a thin slice of mfs with relatively short period of data, u still want
to claim "outperform", the argument is weak at best, misleading at worst. at
the end of day, people will vote with their $.
dishonest.
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: It is too bad that VG actively managed funds outperform, and the fact in
: itself drives some ideologues nuts.
: And I stand by my statement that any research which is not AUM weighted,
: include high ER and closet-index funds are intellectually lazy and dishonest.
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 59 Those studies have something in common, they compare the whole active funds
universe and equal weight, which are intellectually lazy and dishonest. Any
investor who do his or her DD won't invest that way. Or you try to tell me
ER and AUM has no signifivant negetive impact on TR? Or anyone should be
surprised that closet-index funds will underperform, given they closely
mirron index yet charge higher fees?
Actually I love to see people move to index funds, it is of my interest for
at least two reasons, one, it increases competition in pricing and hopefully
drive ER down for the funds that I own, and two, it increase the
inefficiency of the market and create more mispricing opportunities for my
funds managers to take advantage.
you
want
at
【在 s********y 的大作中提到】
: it drives no one here nuts. there are many studies that index funds
: outperform actively managed funds with evidence of many years' data. if you
: pick a thin slice of mfs with relatively short period of data, u still want
: to claim "outperform", the argument is weak at best, misleading at worst. at
: the end of day, people will vote with their $.
:
: dishonest.
|
l******g
发帖数: 6771 | 60 well said
you
want
at
【在 s********y 的大作中提到】
: it drives no one here nuts. there are many studies that index funds
: outperform actively managed funds with evidence of many years' data. if you
: pick a thin slice of mfs with relatively short period of data, u still want
: to claim "outperform", the argument is weak at best, misleading at worst. at
: the end of day, people will vote with their $.
:
: dishonest.
|
|
|
s********i
发帖数: 17328 | 61 20% can beat. it is a big percentage in my opinion. |
s********y
发帖数: 3811 | 62 Would u keep buying lottery with the same odds?
20% can beat. it is a big percentage in my opinion.
【在 s********i 的大作中提到】
: 20% can beat. it is a big percentage in my opinion.
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 63 Are you assuming investors are dart throwing monkeys?
【在 s********y 的大作中提到】
: Would u keep buying lottery with the same odds?
:
: 20% can beat. it is a big percentage in my opinion.
|
s********y
发帖数: 3811 | 64 Be cool. No one is fighting with you here, but I am not seeing any new from
your 1st posting and 10th.
We can better use time somewhere else. Happy investing.
Those studies have something in common, they compare the whole active funds
universe and........
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: Those studies have something in common, they compare the whole active funds
: universe and equal weight, which are intellectually lazy and dishonest. Any
: investor who do his or her DD won't invest that way. Or you try to tell me
: ER and AUM has no signifivant negetive impact on TR? Or anyone should be
: surprised that closet-index funds will underperform, given they closely
: mirron index yet charge higher fees?
: Actually I love to see people move to index funds, it is of my interest for
: at least two reasons, one, it increases competition in pricing and hopefully
: drive ER down for the funds that I own, and two, it increase the
: inefficiency of the market and create more mispricing opportunities for my
|
r****m
发帖数: 1204 | 65 I remember there have been quite a few studies in the past decade that
showed investors (or fund managers for this matter) were even worse than
dart throwing monkeys?
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: Are you assuming investors are dart throwing monkeys?
|
k***n
发帖数: 3158 | 66 I dislike those brokers who sell actively managed fund to potential
passive investors without disclosing that most of them indeed lose to
index funds in a long run.
But let's face it, index funds are for idiots, who dont need to spend
time and energy but can get an average return, which is actually very good
but treating it like a religion and claiming this passive way is near
unbeatable is another extreme, and plain ridiculous.
from
funds
【在 s********y 的大作中提到】
: Be cool. No one is fighting with you here, but I am not seeing any new from
: your 1st posting and 10th.
: We can better use time somewhere else. Happy investing.
:
: Those studies have something in common, they compare the whole active funds
: universe and........
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 67 I actually have a slightly different opinion. I dislike folks like Rick
Ferri even more who sell index funds and charge 0.5-1% fees, sometimes more.
I mean, it is a fantastic business with minimum stress, you do not need to
explain to your client much when things went wrong, just point to the market
, and those "studies". I have to congrutulate them as good businesmen. It is
their business interest in keep publishing those "studies".
As a side note, the biggest losers collectively are actually not investors
who choose either active or passive investment vehicles. It is obvious if
one looks at the difference between fund total return and investor return.
These informations are readily available in M*.
【在 k***n 的大作中提到】
: I dislike those brokers who sell actively managed fund to potential
: passive investors without disclosing that most of them indeed lose to
: index funds in a long run.
: But let's face it, index funds are for idiots, who dont need to spend
: time and energy but can get an average return, which is actually very good
: but treating it like a religion and claiming this passive way is near
: unbeatable is another extreme, and plain ridiculous.
:
: from
: funds
|
s********y
发帖数: 3811 | 68 human emotion is usually a negative force in investing.
I remember there have been quite a few studies in the past decade that
showed investors ........
【在 r****m 的大作中提到】
: I remember there have been quite a few studies in the past decade that
: showed investors (or fund managers for this matter) were even worse than
: dart throwing monkeys?
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 69 That is sadly true that investor returns lag fund returns significantly. My
impression is the higher the volatility of the fund, the bigger the
difference is. The poster child is CGMFX.
【在 r****m 的大作中提到】
: I remember there have been quite a few studies in the past decade that
: showed investors (or fund managers for this matter) were even worse than
: dart throwing monkeys?
|
k***n
发帖数: 3158 | 70 so you can use it in the opposite way and get higher winning odds, lol
【在 s********y 的大作中提到】
: human emotion is usually a negative force in investing.
:
: I remember there have been quite a few studies in the past decade that
: showed investors ........
|
|
|
s********y
发帖数: 3811 | 71 no need to fight with human nature. stocks appreciate in long run; i would
be happy as long as i can get my slice of share.
【在 k***n 的大作中提到】
: so you can use it in the opposite way and get higher winning odds, lol
|
s********i
发帖数: 17328 | 72 五张彩票就能中一张，当然买。
【在 s********y 的大作中提到】
: Would u keep buying lottery with the same odds?
:
: 20% can beat. it is a big percentage in my opinion.
|
s********i
发帖数: 17328 | 73 如果真有20%能beat，那么用过去的performance简单做一个screening，挑出20%去做，
那么最后beat的概率会很高，如果不是100%beat的话。 |
s********y
发帖数: 3811 | 74 are you serious? this is one of the most common mistakes an investor can
make when pick a fund.
【在 s********i 的大作中提到】
: 如果真有20%能beat，那么用过去的performance简单做一个screening，挑出20%去做，
: 那么最后beat的概率会很高，如果不是100%beat的话。
|
s********n
发帖数: 1962 | 75 LOL. What if the list changed completely after 6 months?
【在 s********i 的大作中提到】
: 如果真有20%能beat，那么用过去的performance简单做一个screening，挑出20%去做，
: 那么最后beat的概率会很高，如果不是100%beat的话。
|
l******g
发帖数: 6771 | 76 那就再来一轮，呵呵
【在 s********n 的大作中提到】
: LOL. What if the list changed completely after 6 months?
|
x******n
发帖数: 1328 | 77 大家是不是都犯了一个错误：把"cannot beat"等同于"lose to"了
除了输、赢外，还有一种可能就是打平。两者（某基金和指数)的表现相差
在足够小的范围内算作打平。对于一个人作为养老的几十万美元长期投资，
最终差个几十百把块真的没什么区别。
所以在考虑到基金的管理费时，20%好于指数，40%差于指数，40%基本打平从
而造成"80% cannot beat index"就没那么匪夷所思了
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: It is ironic that bogleheads brought up such cliche that 80% (or whatever
: percentage) MM lose to index and at the same time use market-cap weighted
: index.
: What about AUM weighted active MM performance? I am sure the index will
: still has tiny little edges, but the margin will be significantly smaller.
: How about throw out high-fees and closet index funds? Vangaurd's active
: funds anyone?
: An average Joe trained tennis for a few days can say his tennis skill is
: better than 80% or maybe 90% world population, is he a good tennis player?
|
x******n
发帖数: 1328 | 78 没有人能提前确定将来是一个prolonged bear market
这些事情只能赌，赌对了就是那20%的基金；赌错了，前面的大牛市一脚踏空
就亏到姥姥家了。
例如2009年3月，从之前的种种股市走向和经济形势来看都是一个大熊市，然后
你就卖股票换现金，然后。。。
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: Well not necessarily. For example, in a prolonged bear market, actvie
: managed funds could collectively raise cash and sell equities to ...whom,
: yes index funds investors, assuming indexer are all B&H, DCA type of guys.
|
s********y
发帖数: 3811 | 79 let's not underestimate the expense ratio over long term.
it doesn't look a big deal, avg expense ratio for large funds is 1.2%.
for a time horizon of 10 years, a quick math is (1-0.012) power 10 = 0.886.
for SPY index fund, (1- 0.001) power 10 = 0.99.
【在 x******n 的大作中提到】
: 大家是不是都犯了一个错误：把"cannot beat"等同于"lose to"了
: 除了输、赢外，还有一种可能就是打平。两者（某基金和指数)的表现相差
: 在足够小的范围内算作打平。对于一个人作为养老的几十万美元长期投资，
: 最终差个几十百把块真的没什么区别。
: 所以在考虑到基金的管理费时，20%好于指数，40%差于指数，40%基本打平从
: 而造成"80% cannot beat index"就没那么匪夷所思了
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 80 Same here. And I do not think 100 junk researches make the claim any more
credible.
from
funds
【在 s********y 的大作中提到】
: Be cool. No one is fighting with you here, but I am not seeing any new from
: your 1st posting and 10th.
: We can better use time somewhere else. Happy investing.
:
: Those studies have something in common, they compare the whole active funds
: universe and........
|
|
|
s********y
发帖数: 3811 | 81 u made ur point already. take a hint, let's talk to others.
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: Same here. And I do not think 100 junk researches make the claim any more
: credible.
:
: from
: funds
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 82 I made my point clear from the opening post, but it does not stop people
bring those junk studies.
【在 s********y 的大作中提到】
: u made ur point already. take a hint, let's talk to others.
|
s********y
发帖数: 3811 | 83 lol.
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: I made my point clear from the opening post, but it does not stop people
: bring those junk studies.
|
s********i
发帖数: 17328 | 84 i am not picking A fund. I am picking 20% of funds or a fund index.
【在 s********y 的大作中提到】
: are you serious? this is one of the most common mistakes an investor can
: make when pick a fund.
|
s********i
发帖数: 17328 | 85 会吗？don't just what if...
【在 s********n 的大作中提到】
: LOL. What if the list changed completely after 6 months?
|
r****z
发帖数: 12020 | 86 也许会，也许不会。
然后，~~~~~~~~~~~ 您打算赌一把吗？
【在 s********i 的大作中提到】
: 会吗？don't just what if...
|
s********y
发帖数: 3811 | 87 how? no one with even modest experience in investing will chase past fund
performance like you proposed here...
如果真有20%能beat，那么用过去的performance简单做一个screening，挑出20%去做，
那么最后beat的概率会很高，如果不是100%beat的话。
【在 s********i 的大作中提到】
: i am not picking A fund. I am picking 20% of funds or a fund index.
|
s********i
发帖数: 17328 | 88 举个例子，sp500其中的股票，有些跑过sp500（20%），有些没跑过（80%），那么我设
计一个fund，把过去10或15年每年按跑过的按ranking统计出来，按top 20%取个交集，
well，可能选出来只有10%或更少，但我相信不会是空集，也就是说跑过和没跑过的不
可能是random的，再从剩下的按most recent performance比较好的补上10%，这样我就
有sp500的20%，你觉得我这20%的sp500下一年能跑过sp500的概率是多少？50-50?
【在 s********y 的大作中提到】
: how? no one with even modest experience in investing will chase past fund
: performance like you proposed here...
:
: 如果真有20%能beat，那么用过去的performance简单做一个screening，挑出20%去做，
: 那么最后beat的概率会很高，如果不是100%beat的话。
|
s********y
发帖数: 3811 | 89 past performance is not an indicator for future performance. people say that
for a reason. your plan can easily collect many maturing companies with
faded glory. microsoft can get into it in 2000, apple can in 2012.
【在 s********i 的大作中提到】
: 举个例子，sp500其中的股票，有些跑过sp500（20%），有些没跑过（80%），那么我设
: 计一个fund，把过去10或15年每年按跑过的按ranking统计出来，按top 20%取个交集，
: well，可能选出来只有10%或更少，但我相信不会是空集，也就是说跑过和没跑过的不
: 可能是random的，再从剩下的按most recent performance比较好的补上10%，这样我就
: 有sp500的20%，你觉得我这20%的sp500下一年能跑过sp500的概率是多少？50-50?
|
s**f
发帖数: 332 | 90 我觉得你最后这个说的挺对，指数就是赢过大部分啥都不懂瞎炒股的，这就够了。
我个人的体会是，如果不是专业或者有很大兴趣，炒股要赢过指数，需要投入学
习的知识和精力，和直接买指数比起来得不偿失。至于你说只要训练过就能轻易
战胜指数，这个我也挺怀疑的：如果是这样，绝大部分MF，扣除费用，应该都在
指数之上？实际是这样吗？指数基金是不是赢过大多数的MF，我也不知道。你不
妨随机挑几个剔除high-fee的MF比比，给我们看看结果，也算是普及了啊。
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: It is ironic that bogleheads brought up such cliche that 80% (or whatever
: percentage) MM lose to index and at the same time use market-cap weighted
: index.
: What about AUM weighted active MM performance? I am sure the index will
: still has tiny little edges, but the margin will be significantly smaller.
: How about throw out high-fees and closet index funds? Vangaurd's active
: funds anyone?
: An average Joe trained tennis for a few days can say his tennis skill is
: better than 80% or maybe 90% world population, is he a good tennis player?
|
|
|
s********i
发帖数: 17328 | 91 for a single fund or stock, that is true. however, for a collection of
stocks or funds, it is different. another example, Dow30 may beat SP500
consistently.
that
【在 s********y 的大作中提到】
: past performance is not an indicator for future performance. people say that
: for a reason. your plan can easily collect many maturing companies with
: faded glory. microsoft can get into it in 2000, apple can in 2012.
|
s********y
发帖数: 3811 | 92 from long term, dow30 performance is almost identical with sp500. remember,
if you can find such rules that are consistently valid, you will be very
very rich using leverage or derivative.
【在 s********i 的大作中提到】
: for a single fund or stock, that is true. however, for a collection of
: stocks or funds, it is different. another example, Dow30 may beat SP500
: consistently.
:
: that
|
s********i
发帖数: 17328 | 93 ok, let's say dow30 and sp500 are identical. if 20% vs 80% theory is true
and past performance is not for future, dow30 should do much worse than
sp500, right? because you only pick up 30 stocks vs 500.
,
【在 s********y 的大作中提到】
: from long term, dow30 performance is almost identical with sp500. remember,
: if you can find such rules that are consistently valid, you will be very
: very rich using leverage or derivative.
|
s********y
发帖数: 3811 | 94 sorry. It doesn't make sense to me.
I am not sure how well u know about investing , probably someone here can
understand u better.
ok, let's say dow30 and sp500 are identical. if 20% vs 80% theory is true
and past perfo........
【在 s********i 的大作中提到】
: ok, let's say dow30 and sp500 are identical. if 20% vs 80% theory is true
: and past performance is not for future, dow30 should do much worse than
: sp500, right? because you only pick up 30 stocks vs 500.
:
: ,
|
s********i
发帖数: 17328 | 95 按照你的理论当然不make sense。为什么Dow30会和SP500一样的performance？这说明
这30只股票挑选的有道理，而不是任选30只股票就可以的。回到原始的话题，能不能挑
出20%的fund而使其beat大盘的概率高于平均？我觉得短期内或是中期内是可以的。
投资理论有很多assumption和似是而非的东西，fund的performance也受很多因素影响
，比如最简单的随着fund size的增长要保持它的投资理念就会很难。
我个人觉得，投资其实是个很虚的概念，因为影响因素太多，最简单的办法就是index
funds+portfolio management+rebalance，啥也别想。
【在 s********y 的大作中提到】
: sorry. It doesn't make sense to me.
: I am not sure how well u know about investing , probably someone here can
: understand u better.
:
: ok, let's say dow30 and sp500 are identical. if 20% vs 80% theory is true
: and past perfo........
|
s********y
发帖数: 3811 | 96 dow 30 were picked because of those companies are representatives of US
economy. it has nothing to do the company stock performance.
index
【在 s********i 的大作中提到】
: 按照你的理论当然不make sense。为什么Dow30会和SP500一样的performance？这说明
: 这30只股票挑选的有道理，而不是任选30只股票就可以的。回到原始的话题，能不能挑
: 出20%的fund而使其beat大盘的概率高于平均？我觉得短期内或是中期内是可以的。
: 投资理论有很多assumption和似是而非的东西，fund的performance也受很多因素影响
: ，比如最简单的随着fund size的增长要保持它的投资理念就会很难。
: 我个人觉得，投资其实是个很虚的概念，因为影响因素太多，最简单的办法就是index
: funds+portfolio management+rebalance，啥也别想。
|
s********i
发帖数: 17328 | 97 i never said dow30 are picked by performance. all i am saying is that it is
possible to pick stocks to do something, for example, have "better chance"
to have higher performance under some conditions.
【在 s********y 的大作中提到】
: dow 30 were picked because of those companies are representatives of US
: economy. it has nothing to do the company stock performance.
:
: index
|
s********y
发帖数: 3811 | 98 ok, that's fair. can you read your posting again and explain your thinking
here. it sounds gibberish to me.
"ok, let's say dow30 and sp500 are identical. if 20% vs 80% theory is true
and past performance is not for future, dow30 should do much worse than
sp500, right? because you only pick up 30 stocks vs 500."
is
【在 s********i 的大作中提到】
: i never said dow30 are picked by performance. all i am saying is that it is
: possible to pick stocks to do something, for example, have "better chance"
: to have higher performance under some conditions.
|
s********i
发帖数: 17328 | 99 ok. here what i am thinking, dow30 is the same performance as sp500 and
dow30 is only 6% of sp500. if stock performance is totally random, i.e., one
cannot predict that any stock can beat or miss sp500 in the near future
based on past performance, then the performance of any 6% of sp500 should
behave the same as dow30 or sp500.
【在 s********y 的大作中提到】
: ok, that's fair. can you read your posting again and explain your thinking
: here. it sounds gibberish to me.
: "ok, let's say dow30 and sp500 are identical. if 20% vs 80% theory is true
: and past performance is not for future, dow30 should do much worse than
: sp500, right? because you only pick up 30 stocks vs 500."
:
: is
|
s********y
发帖数: 3811 | 100 that's more like it.
one
【在 s********i 的大作中提到】
: ok. here what i am thinking, dow30 is the same performance as sp500 and
: dow30 is only 6% of sp500. if stock performance is totally random, i.e., one
: cannot predict that any stock can beat or miss sp500 in the near future
: based on past performance, then the performance of any 6% of sp500 should
: behave the same as dow30 or sp500.
|
|
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 101 The majority (~70%) of Vanguard actively managed funds beat their benchmark
(index) over 10 and 15 years.
【在 s**f 的大作中提到】
: 我觉得你最后这个说的挺对，指数就是赢过大部分啥都不懂瞎炒股的，这就够了。
: 我个人的体会是，如果不是专业或者有很大兴趣，炒股要赢过指数，需要投入学
: 习的知识和精力，和直接买指数比起来得不偿失。至于你说只要训练过就能轻易
: 战胜指数，这个我也挺怀疑的：如果是这样，绝大部分MF，扣除费用，应该都在
: 指数之上？实际是这样吗？指数基金是不是赢过大多数的MF，我也不知道。你不
: 妨随机挑几个剔除high-fee的MF比比，给我们看看结果，也算是普及了啊。
|
w***n
发帖数: 1519 | 102 大家还在辩论这个话题啊？
别说Bogle的这个结论有它非常误导人的地方，就算是准确的也很正常。这就是个
Pareto 80－20 law。
你当然可以因为只有20%的同学能考到80分以上就放弃好好学习，或是选择抄袭一个中
等生的答卷；你也可以好好努力，争取拿到优等生才有的成绩。compounding 决定了哪
怕你只是拿到85分，几十年下来都比80分的有天壤之别。正是由于有这样的天壤之别，
多拿一分都很不容易，愿不愿意下苦功就是个人选择了。 |
s********y
发帖数: 3811 | 103 do u really think "下苦功" is really sufficient for a good performance in
stock market? jim cramer probably agrees with you, but i don't. of course,
some people can beat s&p year after year. it demands skills a vast majority
of people here don't have.
【在 w***n 的大作中提到】
: 大家还在辩论这个话题啊？
: 别说Bogle的这个结论有它非常误导人的地方，就算是准确的也很正常。这就是个
: Pareto 80－20 law。
: 你当然可以因为只有20%的同学能考到80分以上就放弃好好学习，或是选择抄袭一个中
: 等生的答卷；你也可以好好努力，争取拿到优等生才有的成绩。compounding 决定了哪
: 怕你只是拿到85分，几十年下来都比80分的有天壤之别。正是由于有这样的天壤之别，
: 多拿一分都很不容易，愿不愿意下苦功就是个人选择了。
|
l******g
发帖数: 6771 | 104 呵呵，投你一票
majority
【在 s********y 的大作中提到】
: do u really think "下苦功" is really sufficient for a good performance in
: stock market? jim cramer probably agrees with you, but i don't. of course,
: some people can beat s&p year after year. it demands skills a vast majority
: of people here don't have.
|
l******g
发帖数: 6771 | 105 those who consistently beat the market are insiders
majority
【在 s********y 的大作中提到】
: do u really think "下苦功" is really sufficient for a good performance in
: stock market? jim cramer probably agrees with you, but i don't. of course,
: some people can beat s&p year after year. it demands skills a vast majority
: of people here don't have.
|
w***n
发帖数: 1519 | 106 Of course working hard alone is not sufficient. You need talent too. I do
agree with you that majority of people don't have it. Here is no different
than the general public. There is no argument about that.
No matter what people do, majority are mediocre, only a small percentage can
be very successful. Why would investing be different?
But I wouldn't discourage others who want to excel in investing, only
because I don't have the talent or I don't want to do diligence.
majority
【在 s********y 的大作中提到】
: do u really think "下苦功" is really sufficient for a good performance in
: stock market? jim cramer probably agrees with you, but i don't. of course,
: some people can beat s&p year after year. it demands skills a vast majority
: of people here don't have.
|
s********y
发帖数: 3811 | 107 i never dissuaded all the people from DIY stock picking. if we really know
ourselves and difficulty of stock/fund picking, relying on hope is never a
good strategy.
【在 w***n 的大作中提到】
: Of course working hard alone is not sufficient. You need talent too. I do
: agree with you that majority of people don't have it. Here is no different
: than the general public. There is no argument about that.
: No matter what people do, majority are mediocre, only a small percentage can
: be very successful. Why would investing be different?
: But I wouldn't discourage others who want to excel in investing, only
: because I don't have the talent or I don't want to do diligence.
:
: majority
|
w***n
发帖数: 1519 | 108 Okay, then at least we have a little common ground. But I don't get where
relying on hope comes from. Only a small percentage can be successful in
about anything. Does that statement sound hopeful to you? The glass is 20%
full rather than 80% empty? LOL I like the spirit.
If you take all the funds/investors in the universe, then of course the
majority have mediocre performance if not failure. At least to me, that is
not a convincing reason that one should just surrender and accept mediocrity
.
When someone suggests average investors should just give up and invest in
index funds, and later active funds from his own company after he left prove
active funds can do very well even if they don't have Peter Lynch. We
should at least think about it...
【在 s********y 的大作中提到】
: i never dissuaded all the people from DIY stock picking. if we really know
: ourselves and difficulty of stock/fund picking, relying on hope is never a
: good strategy.
|
s********y
发帖数: 3811 | 109 hedge fund managers don;t win by their spirit but by more resource, more
star managers and perhaps more info we don't have access to.
also be more quantitative about fee/commission/tax when u look into the
investing universe. for people actively trading in the market, usually
middlemen and irs win, and investor lose, so it is not exactly a 0 sum game.
i have waited for a while to see what active managed funds beat sp500 in
long term. too bad no one can share a ticker here. in another thread, i
mentioned, do ur own math, a 1.2% expense ratio can eat 30% of ur
investment in 30 yr period.
mediocrity
prove
【在 w***n 的大作中提到】
: Okay, then at least we have a little common ground. But I don't get where
: relying on hope comes from. Only a small percentage can be successful in
: about anything. Does that statement sound hopeful to you? The glass is 20%
: full rather than 80% empty? LOL I like the spirit.
: If you take all the funds/investors in the universe, then of course the
: majority have mediocre performance if not failure. At least to me, that is
: not a convincing reason that one should just surrender and accept mediocrity
: .
: When someone suggests average investors should just give up and invest in
: index funds, and later active funds from his own company after he left prove
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 110 Why active traders has anything to do with this thread? Investors can
passively hold active funds, or actively trade passive funds, but it has
nothing to do with the topic at hand.
some VFINX statistics
Trailing Returns (06/30/2013) 1-Year 3-Year 5-Year 10-Year 15-
Year
Investor Return % 26.75 17.21 1.72 7.41 3.35
Total Return % 20.42 18.28 6.91 7.18 4.
16
% Rank in Category (Inv Rtn) 47 16 59 30 49
That difficult? Or refuse to looking?
game.
【在 s********y 的大作中提到】
: hedge fund managers don;t win by their spirit but by more resource, more
: star managers and perhaps more info we don't have access to.
: also be more quantitative about fee/commission/tax when u look into the
: investing universe. for people actively trading in the market, usually
: middlemen and irs win, and investor lose, so it is not exactly a 0 sum game.
: i have waited for a while to see what active managed funds beat sp500 in
: long term. too bad no one can share a ticker here. in another thread, i
: mentioned, do ur own math, a 1.2% expense ratio can eat 30% of ur
: investment in 30 yr period.
:
|
|
|
w***n
发帖数: 1519 | 111 Seriously? There are many active funds that beat the crap out of index funds
. Just to name a few to jump start the search process:
T Rowe Price New Horizons
Fidelity Contrafund
Columbia Acorn Z
【在 s********y 的大作中提到】
: hedge fund managers don;t win by their spirit but by more resource, more
: star managers and perhaps more info we don't have access to.
: also be more quantitative about fee/commission/tax when u look into the
: investing universe. for people actively trading in the market, usually
: middlemen and irs win, and investor lose, so it is not exactly a 0 sum game.
: i have waited for a while to see what active managed funds beat sp500 in
: long term. too bad no one can share a ticker here. in another thread, i
: mentioned, do ur own math, a 1.2% expense ratio can eat 30% of ur
: investment in 30 yr period.
:
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 112 I am not familiar with the funds you mentioned other than FCNTX, mainly
because it is in our 401(k). Will is a great manager, IMHO one of the best
in business, but it irks me a lot that Fido keeps it open at nearly $100B.
Adding other funds Will managed with similar style, the total probably is
above $120B. The only thing I can think of positively is the fees reduced a
little bit to 0.74%. Going forward, he will be hard-pressed to outperform
benchmark, it is just a cash cow for Fido.
Accroding to GMO's Grantham whom I pay close attention to what he has to
say,
Grantham's perspective on asset bloat (2006):
"Fifteen years ago or so I proposed at one of our client conferences a rule
for relating size of assets to value added, or alpha: every time you double
your assets, you lower a positive alpha by 30%, or if you quadruple your
assets, you will halve your alpha if you prefer. Fifteen years later, it
still seems like as well informed a guess as I can come up with."
So my prediction is Will may generate 0.5-1% exepcted excessive return going
forward, and the majority of it will go to the fees. The only positive
thing I can think of, after said all that, is FCNTX appears to be less
volatile than its peers.
funds
【在 w***n 的大作中提到】
: Seriously? There are many active funds that beat the crap out of index funds
: . Just to name a few to jump start the search process:
: T Rowe Price New Horizons
: Fidelity Contrafund
: Columbia Acorn Z
|
s********y
发帖数: 3811 | 113 "just to name a few"? let's face it, the funds u listed here are nothing but
avg among mfs.
even so "beat the crap"? take the arguably most famous fidelity FCNTX as an
example, r u seeing a different chart from the rest of us? i am not seeing
where "beat the crap" comes from? PRNHX had a very good run in 2010. it has
been lagging sp500 for last 2 years.
funds
【在 w***n 的大作中提到】
: Seriously? There are many active funds that beat the crap out of index funds
: . Just to name a few to jump start the search process:
: T Rowe Price New Horizons
: Fidelity Contrafund
: Columbia Acorn Z
|
s********y
发帖数: 3811 | 114 i was just talking to wltsn. no need to inject urself into it.
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: Why active traders has anything to do with this thread? Investors can
: passively hold active funds, or actively trade passive funds, but it has
: nothing to do with the topic at hand.
: some VFINX statistics
: Trailing Returns (06/30/2013) 1-Year 3-Year 5-Year 10-Year 15-
: Year
: Investor Return % 26.75 17.21 1.72 7.41 3.35
: Total Return % 20.42 18.28 6.91 7.18 4.
: 16
: % Rank in Category (Inv Rtn) 47 16 59 30 49
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 115 Now the "long-term" catchword get thrown out of the window?
but
an
has
【在 s********y 的大作中提到】
: "just to name a few"? let's face it, the funds u listed here are nothing but
: avg among mfs.
: even so "beat the crap"? take the arguably most famous fidelity FCNTX as an
: example, r u seeing a different chart from the rest of us? i am not seeing
: where "beat the crap" comes from? PRNHX had a very good run in 2010. it has
: been lagging sp500 for last 2 years.
:
: funds
|
s********y
发帖数: 3811 | 116 if u cannot take a hint. let me be more blunt. please don't respond to my
discussion, thanks.
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: Now the "long-term" catchword get thrown out of the window?
:
: but
: an
: has
|
w***n
发帖数: 1519 | 117 You're right. When the fund gets larger and larger, it's harder for the
manager to keep out-performing the index. He has to lower his bar so to
speak in order to invest all that money.
Also, even if he has bearish view on AAPL for example, he's just not able to
sell all those shares in a short period.
a
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: I am not familiar with the funds you mentioned other than FCNTX, mainly
: because it is in our 401(k). Will is a great manager, IMHO one of the best
: in business, but it irks me a lot that Fido keeps it open at nearly $100B.
: Adding other funds Will managed with similar style, the total probably is
: above $120B. The only thing I can think of positively is the fees reduced a
: little bit to 0.74%. Going forward, he will be hard-pressed to outperform
: benchmark, it is just a cash cow for Fido.
: Accroding to GMO's Grantham whom I pay close attention to what he has to
: say,
: Grantham's perspective on asset bloat (2006):
|
w***n
发帖数: 1519 | 118 Alternatively, he could do what New Horizon did, which is to close the door
to new investors...
to
【在 w***n 的大作中提到】
: You're right. When the fund gets larger and larger, it's harder for the
: manager to keep out-performing the index. He has to lower his bar so to
: speak in order to invest all that money.
: Also, even if he has bearish view on AAPL for example, he's just not able to
: sell all those shares in a short period.
:
: a
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 119 You are welcome to stop posting at all if you do not want to be talked to,
it is an open forum firstly, and my thread (distant) secondly. Not least the
post is not just for you, but mainly for the lurkers to see.
【在 s********y 的大作中提到】
: i was just talking to wltsn. no need to inject urself into it.
|
s********y
发帖数: 3811 | 120 of course. then i always have right not to respond to you, just be clear
here.
the
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: You are welcome to stop posting at all if you do not want to be talked to,
: it is an open forum firstly, and my thread (distant) secondly. Not least the
: post is not just for you, but mainly for the lurkers to see.
|
|
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 121 The stop post on this forum at all.
【在 s********y 的大作中提到】
: if u cannot take a hint. let me be more blunt. please don't respond to my
: discussion, thanks.
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 122 I could care less if you respond to me or not, it is your choice.
【在 s********y 的大作中提到】
: of course. then i always have right not to respond to you, just be clear
: here.
:
: the
|
s********y
发帖数: 3811 | 123 lol.
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: The stop post on this forum at all.
|
w***n
发帖数: 1519 | 124 "avg among mfs"? I'm confused. They rank relatively high among their peers.
If you see them as average, you already know what consistently beat index
funds, then why you sounded like you don't know any that can do just that?
I certainly was looking at the wrong chart. In the last 10 years, FCNTX is
up 102.15% whereas SPY is up 56%. If that doesn't count as "beat the crap",
I don't know what does. I don't know about you, I certainly wouldn't mind
paying a little higher fees for that performance.
but
an
has
【在 s********y 的大作中提到】
: "just to name a few"? let's face it, the funds u listed here are nothing but
: avg among mfs.
: even so "beat the crap"? take the arguably most famous fidelity FCNTX as an
: example, r u seeing a different chart from the rest of us? i am not seeing
: where "beat the crap" comes from? PRNHX had a very good run in 2010. it has
: been lagging sp500 for last 2 years.
:
: funds
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 125 I am not sure he has all the say regarding closing the fund. But seriously,
there is not many money managers who want to be one of the greatest
investors in history, really want to make money for his shareholders and
relatively oblivious to financial rewards.
door
【在 w***n 的大作中提到】
: Alternatively, he could do what New Horizon did, which is to close the door
: to new investors...
:
: to
|
k***n
发帖数: 3158 | 126 he is going to tell you "past performance does not....."
I have said it is like a religion for some people
.
,
【在 w***n 的大作中提到】
: "avg among mfs"? I'm confused. They rank relatively high among their peers.
: If you see them as average, you already know what consistently beat index
: funds, then why you sounded like you don't know any that can do just that?
: I certainly was looking at the wrong chart. In the last 10 years, FCNTX is
: up 102.15% whereas SPY is up 56%. If that doesn't count as "beat the crap",
: I don't know what does. I don't know about you, I certainly wouldn't mind
: paying a little higher fees for that performance.
:
: but
: an
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 127 The catchword need to be thrown out of the window whenever it fits one's
narrative. It will be brought back later in the right scenario.
.
,
【在 w***n 的大作中提到】
: "avg among mfs"? I'm confused. They rank relatively high among their peers.
: If you see them as average, you already know what consistently beat index
: funds, then why you sounded like you don't know any that can do just that?
: I certainly was looking at the wrong chart. In the last 10 years, FCNTX is
: up 102.15% whereas SPY is up 56%. If that doesn't count as "beat the crap",
: I don't know what does. I don't know about you, I certainly wouldn't mind
: paying a little higher fees for that performance.
:
: but
: an
|
s********y
发帖数: 3811 | 128 "relatively high" is an understatement. FCNTX was 3 out 300+ mfs have beat
sp500 from an article i read. also when you pick a star fund， there are
always at least 3 factors u need to consider.
1. the flow is enemy of a fund future performance.
2. the tenure a star manager of a star fund.
3. the "reversion to the mean" of a fund.
there were many legendary funds in investing history. how many keep
performing year after year? i understand u want to pay extra for high
performance mfs today, i would not put my money betting on them.
.
,
【在 w***n 的大作中提到】
: "avg among mfs"? I'm confused. They rank relatively high among their peers.
: If you see them as average, you already know what consistently beat index
: funds, then why you sounded like you don't know any that can do just that?
: I certainly was looking at the wrong chart. In the last 10 years, FCNTX is
: up 102.15% whereas SPY is up 56%. If that doesn't count as "beat the crap",
: I don't know what does. I don't know about you, I certainly wouldn't mind
: paying a little higher fees for that performance.
:
: but
: an
|
s********y
发帖数: 3811 | 129 of course "past performance does not...". i have listed at least 3 reasons
here.
1. the flow is enemy of a fund future performance.
2. the tenure a star manager of a star fund.
3. the "reversion to the mean" of a fund.
no need for name calling btw.
【在 k***n 的大作中提到】
: he is going to tell you "past performance does not....."
: I have said it is like a religion for some people
:
: .
: ,
|
w***n
发帖数: 1519 | 130 You do have some good points, but it's quite difficult to keep this type of
conversation, when you one moment ago said it's avg among mfs and a while
later say "relatively high is an understatement".
Let's get the fact straight first. They are star funds, not average funds.
They have out-performed the index over a 10 year span, so they are not
simply lucky.
About past performance doesn't blablabla, these a few fund managers, among
other stars, have proven record telling you that they can do much better
than the clue-less. They earned the premium that some of us are willing to
pay. I don't expect that they won't have some bad years, but I don't believe
they would suddenly lost the magic touch forever and become worse than the
clue-less either. There are something consistent in them that you can't
simply dismiss by saying past doesn't mean anything...
【在 s********y 的大作中提到】
: "relatively high" is an understatement. FCNTX was 3 out 300+ mfs have beat
: sp500 from an article i read. also when you pick a star fund， there are
: always at least 3 factors u need to consider.
: 1. the flow is enemy of a fund future performance.
: 2. the tenure a star manager of a star fund.
: 3. the "reversion to the mean" of a fund.
: there were many legendary funds in investing history. how many keep
: performing year after year? i understand u want to pay extra for high
: performance mfs today, i would not put my money betting on them.
:
|
|
|
w***n
发帖数: 1519 | 131 Your market timing is very impressive. I've read some of your posts in the
stock board.
Who says market timing is mission impossible? Only those who can't. LOL
【在 k***n 的大作中提到】
: he is going to tell you "past performance does not....."
: I have said it is like a religion for some people
:
: .
: ,
|
w***n
发帖数: 1519 | 132 I'm actually glad he didn't close the fund. If every successful manager
close their doors, I wouldn't be able to get a piece of the good ones.
,
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: I am not sure he has all the say regarding closing the fund. But seriously,
: there is not many money managers who want to be one of the greatest
: investors in history, really want to make money for his shareholders and
: relatively oblivious to financial rewards.
:
: door
|
s********y
发帖数: 3811 | 133 sorry, i meant to say "anything but avg"... but came out as "nothing but avg
".
of
believe
【在 w***n 的大作中提到】
: You do have some good points, but it's quite difficult to keep this type of
: conversation, when you one moment ago said it's avg among mfs and a while
: later say "relatively high is an understatement".
: Let's get the fact straight first. They are star funds, not average funds.
: They have out-performed the index over a 10 year span, so they are not
: simply lucky.
: About past performance doesn't blablabla, these a few fund managers, among
: other stars, have proven record telling you that they can do much better
: than the clue-less. They earned the premium that some of us are willing to
: pay. I don't expect that they won't have some bad years, but I don't believe
|
s********y
发帖数: 3811 | 134 i didn;t know he was good at timing market. i know i am not. most people
around me r not either.
【在 w***n 的大作中提到】
: Your market timing is very impressive. I've read some of your posts in the
: stock board.
: Who says market timing is mission impossible? Only those who can't. LOL
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 135 I am guilty of reverse performance chasing, in addition to my criteria on
selecting active funds, on the assumption that smart people won't suddenly
become dumb, so I often add to my existing funds when they lags in short
term.
of
believe
【在 w***n 的大作中提到】
: You do have some good points, but it's quite difficult to keep this type of
: conversation, when you one moment ago said it's avg among mfs and a while
: later say "relatively high is an understatement".
: Let's get the fact straight first. They are star funds, not average funds.
: They have out-performed the index over a 10 year span, so they are not
: simply lucky.
: About past performance doesn't blablabla, these a few fund managers, among
: other stars, have proven record telling you that they can do much better
: than the clue-less. They earned the premium that some of us are willing to
: pay. I don't expect that they won't have some bad years, but I don't believe
|
k***n
发帖数: 3158 | 136 sorry if it sounded offensive to you
but I respect all opinions regardless it is religion-like or not
in fact, my own approach has religion roots
and I suggested many times on the board that people who do not want
to spend extra time and energy should stay with index funds to get
an average return.
by definition, index funds get an average return, so I simply can not agree
that they are unbeatable over long term. It may be my religion-like
argument too, lol
【在 s********y 的大作中提到】
: of course "past performance does not...". i have listed at least 3 reasons
: here.
: 1. the flow is enemy of a fund future performance.
: 2. the tenure a star manager of a star fund.
: 3. the "reversion to the mean" of a fund.
: no need for name calling btw.
|
k***n
发帖数: 3158 | 137 I do hope I can keep this performance, lol
I will calmly accept it if I lose to the index in the end.
【在 w***n 的大作中提到】
: Your market timing is very impressive. I've read some of your posts in the
: stock board.
: Who says market timing is mission impossible? Only those who can't. LOL
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 138 It is one thing at a few billion, but quite another at $100B.
Let's look at Warren Buffet. He closed his partnership to new investment in
1965 at an asset level of $43 million, that's about 320 million today's
dollar, the reason is he thought his performance would be impaired by
further asset bloat.
Use this data and GMO's rule of thumb regarding asset bloat impact on WB's
performance
Asset Size....Expected Alpha
$320M.........22%
$1.3B.........11%
$5.1B.........5.5%
$20B..........2.8%
$80B..........1.4%
Any active equity fund which AUM close to $80B, charge close to 1%, you may
ask yourself if Warren may not be able to pull it off, why the guy can going
forward?
【在 w***n 的大作中提到】
: I'm actually glad he didn't close the fund. If every successful manager
: close their doors, I wouldn't be able to get a piece of the good ones.
:
: ,
|
s********y
发帖数: 3811 | 139 that's ok. i was reading a book 'the ivy portfolio' few weeks ago. the
authors proposed a practical strategy to combine index etfs and market
timing. it beats sp500 handily. i will look into it more before trying it
out with money.
agree
【在 k***n 的大作中提到】
: sorry if it sounded offensive to you
: but I respect all opinions regardless it is religion-like or not
: in fact, my own approach has religion roots
: and I suggested many times on the board that people who do not want
: to spend extra time and energy should stay with index funds to get
: an average return.
: by definition, index funds get an average return, so I simply can not agree
: that they are unbeatable over long term. It may be my religion-like
: argument too, lol
|
w***n
发帖数: 1519 | 140 No one knows for sure whether they really become dumb, but I think you are
doing the right thing. It's a probability game after all. When you are
stacking the odds in your favor, I think you can forget about the results
for a while. Very likely they will "reversion to the mean" as others pointed
out, except that the mean of star funds is different from the mean of
clueless.
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: I am guilty of reverse performance chasing, in addition to my criteria on
: selecting active funds, on the assumption that smart people won't suddenly
: become dumb, so I often add to my existing funds when they lags in short
: term.
:
: of
: believe
|
|
|
w***n
发帖数: 1519 | 141 Very interesting. I didn't know this method of estimating asset bloat impact
. Thanks for sharing!
in
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: It is one thing at a few billion, but quite another at $100B.
: Let's look at Warren Buffet. He closed his partnership to new investment in
: 1965 at an asset level of $43 million, that's about 320 million today's
: dollar, the reason is he thought his performance would be impaired by
: further asset bloat.
: Use this data and GMO's rule of thumb regarding asset bloat impact on WB's
: performance
: Asset Size....Expected Alpha
: $320M.........22%
: $1.3B.........11%
|
w***n
发帖数: 1519 | 142 I see. No problem.
It's no surprise that I wasn't able to find an average fund that
consistently beat the average index. I didn't even both to try. That's the
norm. Only the extraordinary funds kick the ass of average ones.
avg
【在 s********y 的大作中提到】
: sorry, i meant to say "anything but avg"... but came out as "nothing but avg
: ".
:
: of
: believe
|
