Wew. Never thought buy and hold passive investors were really

Let them believe, they don't know what they miss out on.

>Uses logic to refute your argument
>LOL INSECURE HAHA GOTEM

Try /b/ or something my dude

>>1603771
>not realizing that if it was actually possible to beat the market on average then everyone would just quit their jobs and become day traders

>>1603771
Did somebody mention deez nutts

>>1603768
>ill have you know as an active trader of crypto currencies and penny stocks, i have made more than anyone did back in 2010 holding onto btc long term git gud kid

>>1603777
>Thinking you're going to be the lucky one who does it

You're missing the whole point. If professional money managers can't do it why do you believe you will?

>>1603781
Your comprehension skills seem to be lacking. Reading the post again. >>1603777

>>1603785
I read it, what are you trying to say by this?

All I can infer is that you mean beating the market is very difficult, if an aspect of skill is even involved which agrees with the idea of passive investing.

File: rmiwr.jpg (29KB, 500x303px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x303px

Are you triggered that's he's right or are you triggered that he ripped you a new asshole?

>>1603786

Passive investing does not involve any "skill". If I put $x in an index fund blindly, there is an extremely high chance that its bound to go up in the long run because of inflation and technological advances (providing there are no major wars and extreme natural disasters like Yellowstone erupting).

The very fact that there is a slight positive skew in returns in the long run disproves the efficient markets hypothesis which says that the market has no preferred direction in the long run because prices are just "random" fluctuations above a mean of $0.

Yes, thats actually what they believe and is taught in graduate programs worldwide without question.

Thats why the smart people go into banking and hedge funds while the sheep go into academia and government.

>>1603768
Are you OP from that thread trying again?
In any case, that guy never did explain what was going on in that graph did he?

>>1603798
The smart people make that money by fooling people who trust anyone with a nice suit and a degree from Stanford.

They do it because they make money from fees, it doesn't matter to them because they don't lose. Whatever tho. Maybe you'll be the lucky one.

>>1603804
>The smart people make that money by fooling people who trust anyone with a nice suit and a degree from Stanford.

Thats generally how business works. Capitalizing on information asymmetry.

Efficient Markets assumes perfect knowledge and rational humans implying entrepreneurship itself is some "inefficient anomaly" in their models. lol

>>1603804
This.
Only reason why banks care for degrees for "target" schools.

>Active trading

Anyone with so much money that they can live a decent lifestyle by actively trading stocks and securities can afford to find and pay a trustworthy professional to do it for them, or has alternative things to do with their money that are more profitable and less labor intensive.

Anybody who doesn't have that much money is better served by working a job and investing passively over professional gambling on price speculation.

Then you have the poor unfortunate bastards in the middle who could almost live like the rich if they were just a little bit patient, but 90% of them blow it on risky speculation.

Looks like iHaz spanked another shitcoin forex babby and he got so butthurt that he made a thread about it and is now getting spanked again.

>>1603807
emh only applies to higly liquid markets like stock markets and not economy in general.
But you kind of confirm my thesis that anti-emh people are economically illiterate

>>1603810
THIS


Some of the realist shit on /biz

>>1603768
>Academic studies
>Strict standards for data collection and analysis

You have small lies, big lies and then there's statistics.

It's frightening how easy it is to manipulate data, having it show what you want. What's worse are the various statistical practices that take place to deal with the subpar datasets we often have to deal with. Standards do exist, but they are never really strict or dissallow statistical tricks to have results look more or less meaningfull.

The only thing that does really hold value in academic research is repeating the same experiment or performing the same analysis with a different dataset over and over again, trying to get the same result. Something that is considered boring and even financial suicide to do these days. Its more and more a race to get funding instead of performing research for altruistic reasons.

In any case, academic research still is a long way from reaching the crap that is commercial based research.

>>1604061
Yeah, fuck science, amirite? Those eggheads and their Jew-funded """studies""" are always trying to disprove my gut feelings or the words of my Lord and Savior.

>>1603768
He's right.

Active investors underperform passive investors over 99% of the time.

what i never got is why do people only think of active/passive can you not have a mix of both?

>>1603777
>if it was actually possible to eat healthy and save money then everyone would stop eating fast food and be responsible
poor form

>>1604205
Well I mean either you beleive you can outperform the market or you dont. Its not like people believe in EMH, EXCEPT OF THAT STOCK RIGHT THERE.
>>1604061
maybe provide some examples as to why you are correct rather than just spouting general and broad criticism?

>>1603798
>The very fact that there is a slight positive skew in returns in the long run disproves the efficient markets hypothesis which says that the market has no preferred direction in the long run because prices are just "random" fluctuations above a mean of $0.
Not even close. 0/0

>>1604289
from what ive seen it always seems people either think that you
A: trading so that you can vastly beat the market all the time
B: passive investing and not caring cause in the long run youll do alright.

ive never seen people who actively invest just to gain a bit more/try and beat the passive? if that makes sense, ie it always seems to be black and white arguments

>>1603768
What a tard.

Warren Buffett reliably and consistently beats the market, over the long term I might add. Getting high returns with a small amount of money is easy, but Warren Buffett has BILLIONS to invest, so he isn't just getting lucky. It's his skill. It's the way he allocates capital. So when this guy says it's "extremely improbable" to beat the market he is just talking out of his ass.

>>1604791

>what is statistical probability that one out of millions of active investors are lucky their whole life
>what is profiting from having insider information and influence because youre one of the richest and most famous people alive
>ignoring that Buffet lost billions of Dollars in 2008
>ignoring that Buffet himself admitted he feiled to see the crisis coming
>ignoring that Buffet had invested in Goldman Sachs

File: 1472326264443.jpg (37KB, 655x543px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 655x543px

>>1604791
>A handful of people beat the market out of millions that try
>Therefore, I can too

That's some pretty shitty logic

Most actively managed mutual funds and hedge funds struggle to beat the market, and plenty don't. Especially since 2008.

What makes you so different? Meme coins and MGT?

>>1604791
>Warren Buffett reliably and consistently beats the market, over the long term I might add

How many Warren Buffets are there?

Can you remind me what wager Warren Buffet had placed? I think he's in a bet right now... something about an index fund beating the top Hedge Fund or something...? I think it's called Protege Partners LLC or something.

Something about the index fund beating the Hedge Fund 80% of the years they had been in the contest? I don't know i can't recall.

I mean i think Warren Buffet may have been quite outspoken about index funds, i can't be too sure though

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016/05/02/warren-buffetts-epic-rant-against-wall-street/

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/buffett-most-mportant-investment-lesson-211351601.html

>>1604791
Warren Buffett does mergers & acquisitions, strategic integrations, and cross-portfolio optimizations.

You do not.

You morons need to stop dragging out Warren's name every time we discuss active trading because Warren doesn't do active trading. Warren hasn't learned how to beat the game; he's playing a completely different game altogether.

File: edgarsuit-1.jpg (49KB, 352x352px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 352x352px

>Active fund managers are this insecure

>OP got btfo again
>new thread with the same shit incoming

File: 1436635763992.jpg (42KB, 640x615px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 640x615px

>>1604812
index funds reflect the health of the economy. if youre on the right side of bull and bear turns, you'll beat the market. its so simple.

"analysis causes paralysis"

source: work for a hedge fund that invests in leveraged index funds. within the next 3 years you'll hear about us

>>1606122
>"if youre on the right side of bull and bear turns"
>dumbass way of saying "time the market"
Wew, lad. The only way we're going to "hear about you" is a bankruptcy filing or a SEC prosecution.

>>1606173
screenshot it then. I'm not leaving biz any time soon.
but I promise I'll pray for your closed mind and soul

>>1606374

Good luck. I will try to think of a good cop when that time comes. :^)

-t passive investor in VTI

>>1603777
TastyTrade as several studies proving superior returns on active management

What now

>>1606496

>Due to the institutionalized nature of our financial markets, the timing of market cycles becomes an evermore critical aspect of investing. Assessing the forces which underlie major market movements is an essential element in our investment decision process.

>Only through continuous reappraisal of relative market conditions can our goals be achieved.

>Historical analysis and actual experience have revealed a high degree of correlation between our porprietary ******** Index and ensuing market movements. Our investment philosophy and method of implementation have been tested over a forty-five year period and has a proven track record of success.

>not a "get rich quick" scheme. If you are interested in playing the stock market game rather than investing, our fund is not for you. good luck, i wish you well.

>We invest capital strategically, in sound, long-term investment vehicles, and adjust your risk exposure in accordance with changing market conditions. Our objectives are to consistently compound gains and to minimize losses.

You alone are the judge of whether you are satisfied with your present investment approach.

>it doesnt sound like you are, brother.

>if anyone here is accredited, let's talk. most people dont get access to this information for free. we have a track record, you can read about it if you knew where to look.

people in this thread are thinking of connect 4. some of you got up to checkers.
we're playing chess

>>1606496
I misread earlier in the thread. we are long term in vehicles, but actively managed in exposure

>>1606501
link?

I intend to be an active trader, however from what I have learned it is very very difficult to consistently beat the market average. You have to develop sound critical thinking skills, learn about typical human errors and emotions, accumulate a lot of knowledge and be diligent and thoughtful in your research.

I doubt the goobers at tastytrade can teach you much more than the basics. Neither can all the forex/penny stock/day trader shills here.

>>1606501
>tastytrade

Ive been watching their videos, are they legit?

>>1603768
>being so butthurt that you literally had to create a new fucking thread

File: 1459451823133.gif (112KB, 600x486px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 600x486px

>>1604080
/sci/ here

dude you'd be really fucking surprised at how often "academic" studies are manipulated and allow for the uninformed public to blindly believe everything in them.

I'm not saying that the studies he's talking about aren't true. On the contrary, actually. My research suggests that passive investing is more fruitful given the proper timespan.

But again. You should never trust "academic studies" simply based on the fact that they exist.

Due diligence doesn't simply apply to a company's fundamentals. It applies in all areas of life.

>>1605312
THIS.

>>1606501

Yup.

You can use less capital, take less risk and make greater returns. I'm paper trading still while learning from them and I'm beating my passive investments.

Passive investing sucks.

>>1606563
>not knowing connect 4 involves more strategic reasoning than checkers

>>1606588
Ffs do you people even Google?
Ok
TastyTradenetwork.squarespace.com/tt/blog/backtesting-active-vs-passive

They also talk about it all the time and post blog links and publish studies about it and have links for their studies too. #Occupy was all about people with mysterious knowledge getting paid too much while average workers on main street lose jobs. So what do people do? They put investment knowledge on a pedestal saying it's impossible to learn if you aren't Warren Buffet. That's retarded lies created to keep investment professionals employed and lazy professors from having to learn about investing when they can just tell students it's too hard, don't try. TastyTrade goes against that laziness and tries to teach a lot of shit.

also how can people say "you can't beat the market" when there are dozens of billionaires and countless of 9 figure worth hedge fund managers out there ?

>>1606619
To be clear, I'm not accepting any studies blindly. I do my due diligence about who conducts the studies, their methodology, and their data set. I'm also sensitive to peer review, both positive and negative.

But on /biz/, many people dismiss scientific study of trading and markets simply because the results conflict with their preconceived notions or goals.So while I don't have a problem with you being a skeptic, your warning is entirely misplaced, as would be evident if you spent more time here.

>>1603768

Nothing screams security like being so pissed off about some guys reply on an anonymous messageboard, that you make a whole new thread all about it.

>>1606781
Not op but It's a recurring problem in academia and investing

Academic studies of many actively managed funds were compared to passive diversified and/or index funds in the 1970s and those same texts are taught in univarsity today. Many redditorfags come on here and cite that shit over and over. It's an urban legend that needs to be refuted. Active management is hard work but it is possible and very profitable to learn. It SHOULD be understood and learned not ignored or delegated to an overpaid investment professional. It has nothing to do with some other 4chan thread this argument is decades old.

>>1606792

K then tell us how to consistently beat the market
Oh wait you cant

>>1606792
>Academic studies of many actively managed funds were compared to passive diversified and/or index funds in the 1970s
Fama published his study in 2009.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1356021

Go away, dumbass.

>>1606821
>K then tell us how to consistently beat the market
if someone did, they wouldn't share that information anyways. did you know there are alternative models of option pricing beyond the BS model? did you know that the guy who beat the BS model by a year has never shared his own formula?

there's not point positing such statement on 4chan because anyone capable of answering has better things to do than shitpost here.

>>1606828

>you should LEARN how to do active management
>twice in one post
>show me
>theres actually no way for you to learn it xDDD

Classic active scum

>>1606834
do you fucking realize you're replying to 2 different people? you can't even handle that. how are you going to debate properly.

>>1606844

All active scum are the same.
No need to differentiate.

>>1606742
looks like no one can answer this, that's what I thought too.

>>1606859

>what is "cant beat the market CONSISTENTLY"
>what is "beat the market at the same risk level"
>what is statistical probability that some people will beat the market out of sheer luck for many years

Show me those countless managers, they all fail according to academic research. Pretty much no one ever argues against it once he has to provide his own historical record.

>>1606877


That'ts the thing though, those millionaires/billionaires run funds that have been consistently performing in the double digit rate for multiple years


ever heard of the medaillon fund ?
It averaged 71.8% annual return from 1994 to mid 2014
>"From 2001 through 2013, the fund’s worst year was a 21 percent gain, after subtracting fees. Medallion reaped a 98.2 percent gain in 2008, the year the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index lost 38.5 percent."
>Of the 148 months between January 1993 and April 2005, Medallion only had 17 monthly losses. Out of 49 quarters in the same time period, Medallion only posted three quarterly losses. Medallion had between 1993–2005 only one year showing a loss: 1989.[29]

all those traders working for the fund had to beat the market CONSISTENTLY to achieve that

>>1606884

And how many funds are there, you mong?
Five?
Or thousands, and every year a huge percentage is silentlyclosed because they failed?

And I can bet you my soul that this fund doesnt invest in S&P 500 only, which is what you are comparing it to -> NOT same risk class -> NOT comparable -> fuck off

>>1606896

are you fucking retarded ?
I just proved you wrong on your stupid claim of "the market cannot be beaten consistently"

just because it is not accessible to the vast majority of the wanna be investors out there does not mean it's not possible.

Their models work for a reason. Those guy all have hard science backgrounds. There are multiple funds like this out there, and each fund has dozens of traders WHO ALL BEAT THE MARKET in order for their fund to perform so spectacularly.

Just because you can't beat the market trading shitcoins in your mom's basement does not mean it's not possible and has not be done

Educate yourself and do some research before spouting bullshit. Imagine if you had spent all that time learning actual finance instead of shitposting ?
I will not be posting anymore.

>>1606877
are you accredited? I'll show you our track record

>>1606900
>i like the cut of your jib

>>1606742
Shit, if I could get away with charging 2/20 fees, I'd be rich too. Gullible bastards like you love to give people money, apparently for no reason.

>>1606900

You cant beat it consistently on the same risk level.

>hurr I can compare S&P 500 with a fund that invests in something entirely different

And ironically, investing in Bitcoin in year one would have granted a few thousand percent more return than your little secret treehouse fund.

>>1606903

I invented a time machine, but I can only show you if you belong to my secret time machine club

You active wannabes are so pathetic

>>1604208
>Everyone could be better than average if they tried harder!

>>1606122
>within the next 3 years you'll hear of us

"Local man found hilariously killed in autoerotic bondage accident, was named yesterday as Anon Anonyson of Kike-U-Like Investments Plc. Coroners are unable to determine whether the cause of death was suffocation caused by the child's size Sailor Moon outfit the deceased was wearing, or rupturing due to the two cucumbers inserted in the deceased butt" - Bumfuck Nowhere's Weekly Local Rag, page 17