Comment by dsacco | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dsacco | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

You're making a lot of absolute statements that are demonstrably false.

>> You will never, ever beat the market by making smart trades.

How do you define "smart" trades? There are people and firms which consistently beat the S&P 500 after fees and trade commissions on a timeline of 20+ years without using insider trading. What would this be called, other than "smart" trading?

>> Active funds employ hundreds or thousands of people who work more than full-time to support an operation of systematically studying investment opportunities and exploiting inside information to beat the market, and even they don't beat the market.

Most do not, but the fact that most peoples' companies don't IPO doesn't mean it's impossible. Firms like RenTec consistently beat the market, and they have less than 300 employees total.

>> Making targeted trades costs money and will do no better than index funds anyway.

I agree with advice advocating index funds for beginners, but it's not fair to an individual's potential aspirations to claim that active trading is simply ineffective. It's extremely difficult, but that's wildly different from being ineffective.

>There are people and firms which consistently beat the S&P 500 after fees and trade commissions on a timeline of 20+ years without using insider trading. What would this be called, other than "smart" trading?

Mind naming a few? I'm unfamiliar with any firms that consistently can beat the S&P 500, much less for 20+ consecutive years. This could, of course, be called "luck". Given the number of investors, some will inevitably beat the index. The point is that it's impossible to predict, ahead of time, who that will be.

> I agree with advice advocating index funds for beginners, but it's not fair to an individual's potential aspirations to claim that active trading is simply ineffective. It's extremely difficult, but that's wildly different from being ineffective.

Again, even amongst professional investors, who have decades of experience, and spend 80+ hours per week doing this, very few are able to consistently beat the index.

Off the top of my head: Baupost Group (Seth Klarman), Greenlight (David Einhorn), Gotham (Howard Marks), Renaissance (Jim Simons), Oaktree (Joel Greenblatt), Graham & Newman (Benjamin Graham), Magellan (Peter Lynch), Pabrai (Mohnish Pabrai), ...

Most of these are closed and closely held. Keeping your capital base small with long-term-minded investors (e.g., "family" money) is a huge leg up.

There is a difference between an institutional investor or advisors with fiduciary responsibility and a free agent. Professionals have consequences for fucking up beyond the money lost. So they always parrot whatever advice will not get them sued.

Warren Buffet has been quoted elsewhere in this story recommending index funds. But, funny enough, his own behavior is 180 degrees from that.

I always find these threads amusing. The average commenter treat stocks as some sort of black magic that requires a mystical priesthood of professionals to touch. But nobody says "OMG, buying a house is a crazy investment, buy a REIT ETF and rent!"

Stocks are like any other commodity. My wife is an aggressive shopper -- she understands the marketing cycles and can get 6 months of Tide for $0.50 on the dollar. With some work, you can get deals on equites.

There are very specific reasons a house is a better investment than an REIT.

1. Taxes - There are tax breaks to owning 2. Property Management - For an REIT you pay a property manager. If you own, no need to manage your property. Free +1.2% return on asset! 3. Loans are heavily subsidized by the government, REITs cannot get 30 year loans at 3-4% interest. 4. Occupancy - You live here. Occupancy rate 100% so take an +.6% to returns!

If the government stopped 1 and 3, technology completely automated 2, and leases were 4 years long. Then no one would recommend buying your own house as an investment.

How about Berkshire Hathaway itself?

http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffett-berkshire-hath...

You can think he got lucky 50 years in a row (1/2^50, what're the odds? Does it invalidate the null hypothesis?) or that investing involves an element of skill.

It's impossible to predict who will win a poker tournament but winning games is a skill, and certain players consistently do better than others. Sure, I wouldn't advocate the average person try to make money with poker, but it's disingenuous to pretend it's a black art.

>How about Berkshire Hathaway itself?

Warren Buffett to heirs: Put my estate in index funds http://www.marketwatch.com/story/warren-buffett-to-heirs-put...

It's good advice for most. I'm sure poker champions want their money invested similarly (instead of having their children attempt to grow their wealth by following their footsteps). But we shouldn't deny that investing is a skill.

It's investment hyperbole. Like when a gun enthusiast tells you "your gun is always loaded"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com