Live data from Hacker News

Does Market Timing Work?

schwab.com

241–250 of 292 posts

Re: Does Market Timing Work?

#241

Worth noting that about 30% of active fund managers have beat the S&P 500 going back to 1993 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4096205 They may not do so for their investors - this is before fees. But it does seem significant that they are beating the index on their own, and over a consistent period of time. 30% is not nothing. Seems like a blow to strong-form EMH to me. As an FYI, I never want to h…

That warrants further investigation, but even if the data is flawless it isn't necessarily a blow to EMH.

As a very contrived example (to hopefully illustrate the "risk-adjusted" component of EMH while keeping the math simple), suppose the market consists of many equally sized firms and admits a strategy where each year 0.1% of firms will be uniformly randomly selected to have all their assets wiped out and distributed amongst the rest, and due to social pressures and incentives everyone uses the same strategy. Each year, 99.9% of firms will beat the market [0]. Forward-looking, 97% of funds starting in 1993 will have beaten the market that entire period (backward-looking is less meaningful because it depends on, among other things, how many new entrants to the market there are, not just their performance).

Despite the 97% success rate on a 30-year basis, this is still very plausibly a scheme you wouldn't want to participate in (your relative valuations of different outcomes might still make it desirable, but that's a separate question), but it doesn't violate EMH because of the high risk relative to the small returns being achieved.

Bringing the contrived example back to the real world a bit, that particular failure mode is common whenever a machine-learning person tries to tackle the market on their own. Even after getting over the hump of price -> bid/ask -> order book -> ... in correctly modeling what's happening, they're still prone to doing things like predicting the chance a security will go up or down and assuming that both branches have equal magnitudes. When they throw it at the real world, they find that despite low false positive and false negative rates for predicting when the price will increase, the times they were wrong were all the high-magnitude events, so they lose money on average.

Another way that potentially ties back to the real world, what exactly are the incentives for an active fund manager? When they fail, can they start a new fund? Can they distribute excess losses to a couple of years when the market also did poorly to be able to say something like "every year the S&P 500 went up, we went up more" and still attract new clients? It's not obvious to me that you'd expect behavior which would result in a low chance of beating the S&P 500 over a period of time, even if strong-form EMH holds.

[0] This assumes the "market" is static, but the details aren't meaningfully different when you instead benchmark against something like the S&P 500.

Re: Does Market Timing Work?

#242
post #194
post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m genuinely a little bit more productive with ChatGPT. A lot of tasks I do take 30 mins or a hours less, several times per week.

So a basically trivial improvement in other words.

I save at least 10 hours a week using ChatGPT. Likely more.

Re: Does Market Timing Work?

#243
post #238
post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree that most of society should be the beneficiary of productivity gains, I’m not sure retirement is still a net positive. It seems like a lot of health and well-being is related to being a valuable member of society and fortunately or unfortunately, for many, work provides that function.

Ugh, I hate this way of thinking. Perhaps we've all been brainwashed to believe this by capitalism? I'm perfectly happy pursuing my own interests, at my own pace, without having some overlord making sure I'm maximizing value for some corporation. Sure, I don't want to just sit around doing nothing, but there's a wide gulf of possibilities between that and full-time employment.

I think you missed some of the nuance in the statement. It is not advocating for staying in the grind forever.

But for many retirees, they have never developed the mechanisms to continue being a productive member of society without structured work. The net result is a general drop in well being and health in their “golden” years.

Also, i made a comment where I think our relationship to work needs to change. I think that speaks to your point. I don’t think a false dichotomy between “working for the capitalist overlord” and “doing whatever I want” is what I was after.

Re: Does Market Timing Work?

#244
post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The current system is mathematically unsustainable pretty much by the design of a certain political faction interested in demonstrating the incompetence of government. The current system is mathematically unsustainable as a result of politics. If you're going to untie benefits from payments then the first sensible thing to do is to make the same payments to everyone instead of giving more to people who made more mo…

> the government owes itself money: it's a debit and a credit in equal amounts and nets to zero Can you elaborate? It seems like the govt has a liability and the pensioners have an asset.

The government has a fund that is used to pay for SS. The fund is an asset they’ve committed to using to pay the liability of their pensioner promises.

That fund is an asset full of assets. Those assets are government debt. Owning your debt basically nets to 0.

Re: Does Market Timing Work?

#245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Schwab would rather you have cash in your account than be invested in securities Compared to IBKR which gives "benchmark - 0.5%" on your NAV in USD, what does Schwab give for your USD sitting idle?

It's not an automatic sweep, but anyone holding cash at Schwab moves it to something like SWVXX [1] paying ~5% right now. [1] https://www.schwabassetmanagement.com/products/swvxx

Beware that such a mutual fund buy transaction closes at end of day. A sale of a stock or ETF closes 2-3 days in the future. So if you place both orders concurrently in your margin account, you may find you've borrowed from Schwab for those 2-3 days on margin, at a rate of ~10%. Schwab's order screen will not warn you of this in advance.

What happens if you make this mistake in a "cash account" i.e. no margin allowed I do not know and hope not to find out by means of usual accidental carelessness.

An alternative to SWVXX is VUSB, which trades with standard ETF timing.

Re: Does Market Timing Work?

#246
post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything on the way down in a steep selloff is a good buy, so you did good. Also WRT the pandemic it was pretty clear that there was going to be panic selling, as soon as a pandemic was announced. What wasn’t clear was where the bottom was and how long the recovery would be. Some waited for a deeper bottom and missed out on the vertical recovery.

> Also WRT the pandemic it was pretty clear that there was going to be panic selling, as soon as a pandemic was announced. If you were this sure, did you take a short position when pandemic was announced? Hindsight is 20/20. Also not sure what you meant by when pandemic was "announced" but I guess you are referring to March 2020 broadly

Yeah March 2020. I was not actively trading stocks back then so I watched passively. I do think market timing is bad as a general strategy but sometimes the writing is on the wall. I have timed the market successfully since then though, when seeing glaring trends or decisions whose impact I thought was obvious. But that's small amounts of money at stake, and once in a great while.

Re: Does Market Timing Work?

#247
post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the government owes itself money: it's a debit and a credit in equal amounts and nets to zero Can you elaborate? It seems like the govt has a liability and the pensioners have an asset.

The government has a fund that is used to pay for SS. The fund is an asset they’ve committed to using to pay the liability of their pensioner promises. That fund is an asset full of assets. Those assets are government debt. Owning your debt basically nets to 0.

I agree for a snapshot in time. I think the distinction is that if the liability includes future payments to current citizens posting into the system, the liability may outpace the asset.

Re: Does Market Timing Work?

#248
Most derivatives traders I know in the industry do some version of buy-and-hold for their personal portfolios, but one of the best I know does something completely different. He sticks to a philosophy of scanning multiple "small" cap companies(He's made massive amounts of money from this. He admits that it's basically a second job in terms of time and effort spent, but believes that it's replicable because no institutional investor is actually looking at these stocks, leading to hypothetical mispricings.

Re: Does Market Timing Work?

#249

One of my family members is absolutely convinced that they can time the market and it kinda drives me up the wall every time it comes up. They will use all these “techniques” to draw arbitrary lines on the chart to establish a trend in the market while watching the news like a hawk everyday. Meanwhile I just get on with my day with index funds and get better returns.

Why do you feel so convinced they can't?

1. Their reasoning is arbitrary. They pick and choose factors to justify their analysis.

2. They would be much richer if they could.

Re: Does Market Timing Work?

#250
post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government has a fund that is used to pay for SS. The fund is an asset they’ve committed to using to pay the liability of their pensioner promises. That fund is an asset full of assets. Those assets are government debt. Owning your debt basically nets to 0.

I agree for a snapshot in time. I think the distinction is that if the liability includes future payments to current citizens posting into the system, the liability may outpace the asset.

The amount of expected social security payments is independent. They don't have enough "money" in the "trust fund" for that regardless.

The point is that the "trust fund" is a NOP. It's like writing a check to yourself. When you go to deposit it into your account, your account balance doesn't change.

Every penny the Social Security Administration withdraws from the "trust fund" is either coming out of that year's general revenues or is causing the US government to sell more treasuries into the bond market. It's the same thing that would happen if the "trust fund" was empty and the money the Social Security Administration pays out in excess of what it collected that year came out of general revenues or deficit spending.

Worrying about what happens if it "runs out" is ridiculous. It's like worrying about what happens if you run out of checks you wrote to yourself. What you need to worry about is where you're actually going to get the money.

Which you can go ahead and do already because both "social security tax" and "deficit spending" aren't particularly ideal, but that's what's happening today. Social Security tax is one of the most regressive taxes we have.

Post reply on HN