Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
comparisons between index vs managed are never done under real battle field conditions. they assume lab conditions with all the parameters above even steven. the real world does not work like that.
Indeed, on average it is as likely as not that managed funds do even worse than index funds on their benchmark index.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
portfolio performance is what counts not the individual funds that make it up .
Correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage 80
I know it's not for everyone, but there are "regular" people out there who study the markets and do very well with the buy low/sell high method.
And there are people out there who study the markets and do very poorly with the buy low/sell high method.
mathjak, HFT and day trading are definitely zero-sum games. Absolutely positive on that one. Think in aggregate. It's mathematically impossible for the system as a whole to win. You can't create more money than business itself generates.
mathjak, HFT and day trading are definitely zero-sum games. Absolutely positive on that one. Think in aggregate. It's mathematically impossible for the system as a whole to win. You can't create more money than business itself generates.
maybe defininitely not zero sum game.. i love making up my own words.
i worry about two things , my total portfolio return and whether i am happy with the risk vs rewards for the return i got.
Both of which are reactive measures, rather than predictive, and therefore useless for helping anyone else make good decisions. Congratulations on what you've claimed. Until you can produce objective proof that your approach is better than other approaches, I'll respectfully consider your claims in that regard to be unreliable and broadly non-actionable. Please respectfully allow me to do so.
Both of which are reactive measures, rather than predictive, and therefore useless for helping anyone else make good decisions. Congratulations on what you've claimed. Until you can produce objective proof that your approach is better than other approaches, I'll respectfully consider your claims in that regard to be unreliable and broadly non-actionable. Please respectfully allow me to do so.
want objective proof? actually i follow a popular newsletter that a few of us here follow. i have been with them for 25 years now. most of the others here are new comers. our results are fully documented .
up until about 5 years ago i followed the growth model and then switched to the income model.
last year i got an 11% with 76% less risk then the s&p 500. that is what i am interested in.
Curious, how do you put such a precise number on risk?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
