11–20 of 69 posts
I've had a 210% year toying around with stocks. I just assumed everyone had been doing well since the drop last March.
Since on average everyone gets the market return someone must be underperforming the market in order for you to be overperforming.
Seems like a case of survivorship bias. Unclear what this guy is doing that's particularly unique. He invested a lot in Amazon and Tesla, relatively early. Out of everyone investing in the time period, someone was bound to be holding the most of some of the stocks that do crazy things. Having Asperger's, starting as a CPA, not using value investing, reading Christensen... I doubt any of these are gonna shake up insti…
Also, you don't need to do anything "particularly unique" to generate very impressive returns. No firm (besides maybe RenTec) is doing anything that is truly out there and on another level: employees join and leave, ideas get passed around, etc. And yet, there are many top tier firms that end up hitting out of the park, year after year.
People on HN always make these cheap throwaway comments about "expert coin-flippers" and "survivorship bias" when talking about finance. I'm not sure exactly why, but I think it comes from disdain for finance. I also think that the idea that some people are just better at generating wealth through the markets can be uncomfortable.
Anyways, the chance of his returns being luck is extremely small, any which way you cut it.
I've had a 210% year toying around with stocks. I just assumed everyone had been doing well since the drop last March.
Since on average everyone gets the market return someone must be underperforming the market in order for you to be overperforming.
Seems like a case of survivorship bias. Unclear what this guy is doing that's particularly unique. He invested a lot in Amazon and Tesla, relatively early. Out of everyone investing in the time period, someone was bound to be holding the most of some of the stocks that do crazy things. Having Asperger's, starting as a CPA, not using value investing, reading Christensen... I doubt any of these are gonna shake up insti…
Using some simple math (and somewhat inaccurate math), let's calculate the chance of the null hypothesis being true: he has no skill and it is just luck, assuming 10% annualized volatility for the market and 8% annualized return. By my calculation, over the six year period, there's a 4.82e-18 chance that his returns are due to luck and the null hypothesis is true. Of course I'm simplifying a lot, but I think you get…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using some simple math (and somewhat inaccurate math), let's calculate the chance of the null hypothesis being true: he has no skill and it is just luck, assuming 10% annualized volatility for the market and 8% annualized return. By my calculation, over the six year period, there's a 4.82e-18 chance that his returns are due to luck and the null hypothesis is true. Of course I'm simplifying a lot, but I think you get…
Your comparison of his investing style to the broad market is incredibly far off. If you want to make calculations at least do it off a more accurate benchmark and not the S&P 500. Something like ARKK or at least QQQ.
Seems like a case of survivorship bias. Unclear what this guy is doing that's particularly unique. He invested a lot in Amazon and Tesla, relatively early. Out of everyone investing in the time period, someone was bound to be holding the most of some of the stocks that do crazy things. Having Asperger's, starting as a CPA, not using value investing, reading Christensen... I doubt any of these are gonna shake up insti…
Using some simple math (and somewhat inaccurate math), let's calculate the chance of the null hypothesis being true: he has no skill and it is just luck, assuming 10% annualized volatility for the market and 8% annualized return. By my calculation, over the six year period, there's a 4.82e-18 chance that his returns are due to luck and the null hypothesis is true. Of course I'm simplifying a lot, but I think you get…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using some simple math (and somewhat inaccurate math), let's calculate the chance of the null hypothesis being true: he has no skill and it is just luck, assuming 10% annualized volatility for the market and 8% annualized return. By my calculation, over the six year period, there's a 4.82e-18 chance that his returns are due to luck and the null hypothesis is true. Of course I'm simplifying a lot, but I think you get…
Although I agree that survivorship bias is a cheaply constructed argument, it’s hard to know how good this fund really is when it’s only been in operation during the greatest bull run of our lifetime.
Seems like a case of survivorship bias. Unclear what this guy is doing that's particularly unique. He invested a lot in Amazon and Tesla, relatively early. Out of everyone investing in the time period, someone was bound to be holding the most of some of the stocks that do crazy things. Having Asperger's, starting as a CPA, not using value investing, reading Christensen... I doubt any of these are gonna shake up insti…
The best investment decisions will nearly always look obvious in hindsight .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using some simple math (and somewhat inaccurate math), let's calculate the chance of the null hypothesis being true: he has no skill and it is just luck, assuming 10% annualized volatility for the market and 8% annualized return. By my calculation, over the six year period, there's a 4.82e-18 chance that his returns are due to luck and the null hypothesis is true. Of course I'm simplifying a lot, but I think you get…
Although I agree that survivorship bias is a cheaply constructed argument, it’s hard to know how good this fund really is when it’s only been in operation during the greatest bull run of our lifetime.