"severesocialanxiety" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
[email hidden] (Jan) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
[email hidden] (severesocialanxiety) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
my area of expertise is finance. studies show that picking stocks at random is the best way to pick stocks. eg buy index funds. these studies leave no room for doubt . it is black and white. simple math. of course nobody making a living in finance is ever going to admit this, but anyone with a background in math can immediately understand the studies.
Here is some evidence that contradicts your claims. One can easily find more. I am lucky that you are not my fund manager! 🙂
10,20,30 years is not statistically significant given the variability. even if some outperformance is persistent, it is immaterial compared to the high management expenses you pay with active funds. in other words, stick with index funds because their low mers more than compensate for any outperformance by active funds. most studies suggest there is negative persistence.
Vanguard is good. Very good. Bogle is my God. I have a couple of his books eg intelligent investing. You can't go wrong with vanguard. Us canadians had to get US addresses to buy that stuff. the vanguard wilshire 5000 is trading as etf on amex. I bought some recently . vanguard total return fund is all you really need for US exposure. you don't need any other index funds. Bogle is a hero amongst a bunch of us up canada where mers are 2.5% which means you lose 40% of your return.
"C Kent" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
That's OK, I'll stick with Vanguard.
"severesocialanxiety" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
[email hidden] (Jan) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
[email hidden] (severesocialanxiety) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> > my area of expertise is finance. studies show that picking stocks at > random is the best way to pick stocks. eg buy index funds. these > studies leave no room for doubt . it is black and white. simple math. > of course nobody making a living in finance is ever going to admit > this, but anyone with a background in math can immediately understand > the studies.
Here is some evidence that contradicts your claims. One can easily find more. I am lucky that you are not my fund manager! 🙂
10,20,30 years is not statistically significant given the variability. even if some outperformance is persistent, it is immaterial compared to the high management expenses you pay with active funds. in other words, stick with index funds because their low mers more than compensate for any outperformance by active funds. most studies suggest there is negative persistence.
to be clear , vamguard are index funds and that means they buy the entire market which is what i advocate. it buying stocks at random.
"C Kent" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
That's OK, I'll stick with Vanguard.
"severesocialanxiety" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
[email hidden] (Jan) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
[email hidden] (severesocialanxiety) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> > my area of expertise is finance. studies show that picking stocks at > random is the best way to pick stocks. eg buy index funds. these > studies leave no room for doubt . it is black and white. simple math. > of course nobody making a living in finance is ever going to admit > this, but anyone with a background in math can immediately understand > the studies.
Here is some evidence that contradicts your claims. One can easily find more. I am lucky that you are not my fund manager! 🙂
10,20,30 years is not statistically significant given the variability. even if some outperformance is persistent, it is immaterial compared to the high management expenses you pay with active funds. in other words, stick with index funds because their low mers more than compensate for any outperformance by active funds. most studies suggest there is negative persistence.
