201–210 of 327 posts
I think we are reaching the end of that era. I guess we shall see.
I am a hedge fund guy who invests his own $$$$ passively so make of this what you will. There will always be a mix of active and passive. Fundamentally - passive only works when it follows smart active. Actives do expensive research and trade against each other to arrive at the consensus price. Passives trade at that price for "free." Since both get the same price on average but passives incur no cost, they win on av…
For more recent (and much more technically difficult) treatment, you can take a look at Garleanu and Pederson (2018) ("Efficiently Inefficient Markets for Asset and Asset Management").
I am a hedge fund guy who invests his own $$$$ passively so make of this what you will. There will always be a mix of active and passive. Fundamentally - passive only works when it follows smart active. Actives do expensive research and trade against each other to arrive at the consensus price. Passives trade at that price for "free." Since both get the same price on average but passives incur no cost, they win on av…
No, actives can make money on average. If the actives do expensive research and learn things, they can buy good stocks at low (below-fair-value-given-new-knowledge) prices, drive up the price, and the passives follow later, buying at high (fair) prices. No one needs to lose, but actives accrue a disproportionate fraction of the gains.
> This breaks down if passives outnumber actives
Hypothetically there is a level of passive investing where the system breaks, but (1) this has nothing to do with 50% threshold (a small active minority can be fine) and (2) the are natural strong forces that prevent this from happening (as the fraction of passives increases, the reward for being active increases, drawing in more actives).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is Wealthfront so bad? Their fees don’t make them cheap, is that it?
Correct. What they are selling you is an asset allocation, this turns on it's head all the innovation since the early 90s...and the performance you likely get will be indistinguishable from what most people could achieve on their own. One of the big advantages that savers have today are open platforms (there was a time when fund managers ran their own platforms), low dealing costs, low spreads, and ETFs. All that inv…
This doesn't matter for a retirement account, though.
[1] https://support.wealthfront.com/hc/en-us/articles/209348486-...
> Conventional wisdom holds that passive trading is the rational investing strategy. That isn't conventional wisdom. It's not someone's opinion. It's statistically proven reality. Whether you're an individual trader or a billionaire hedge fund manager, active strategies lose out to passive ones in the long run. > has catalyzed a lean-in mindset around investing, particularly among Gen Z. And it will burn them, just l…
This is true historically. But at certain times it's a complete no-brainer to enter the market or not. For instance consider post Covid at around March/April 2020. Stocks have dropped 20-30%. It took Moderna 2-3 days to develop a vaccine, is a 20% drop in e.g. Apple justified, or is it simply free money?
Top 1% own 38% of the value in stocks.
> Conventional wisdom holds that passive trading is the rational investing strategy. That isn't conventional wisdom. It's not someone's opinion. It's statistically proven reality. Whether you're an individual trader or a billionaire hedge fund manager, active strategies lose out to passive ones in the long run. > has catalyzed a lean-in mindset around investing, particularly among Gen Z. And it will burn them, just l…
> That isn't conventional wisdom. It's not someone's opinion. It's statistically proven reality. Whether you're an individual trader or a billionaire hedge fund manager, active strategies lose out to passive ones in the long run. This claim is false. Some funds have overperformed year after year with high margins and (relatively) low risk, for decades. For example, Renaissance Technologies' Medallion Fund and Warren…
The only issue I take with this article is their seemingly blase take on the risky investing behavior of Gen Z. Sure, if that's the lay of the land then use it to your advantage. But it seems a bit predatory. Risky activities tend to hurt more investors than they help, and lead to a small number of big winners and many losers. You can't just increase risk and increase reward for everyone. Regarding the predicament Ge…
Some of their assets (mainly houses, I’d expect). Anything they don’t sell can pass to their heirs and likely will even get a tax break (step up in basis) instead of a tax hit (estate tax exclusion is huge, at the federal level).
> Conventional wisdom holds that passive trading is the rational investing strategy. That isn't conventional wisdom. It's not someone's opinion. It's statistically proven reality. Whether you're an individual trader or a billionaire hedge fund manager, active strategies lose out to passive ones in the long run. > has catalyzed a lean-in mindset around investing, particularly among Gen Z. And it will burn them, just l…
> That isn't conventional wisdom. It's not someone's opinion. It's statistically proven reality. Whether you're an individual trader or a billionaire hedge fund manager, active strategies lose out to passive ones in the long run. This claim is false. Some funds have overperformed year after year with high margins and (relatively) low risk, for decades. For example, Renaissance Technologies' Medallion Fund and Warren…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They’re making money up and down. For example, SPY is likely done climbing for a while. Maybe it will squeeze up to ~4160, but it’s either going to be flat or aggressively down in the coming days. Thursday/Friday was a very clear exit day. If it squeezes north and over extends further, it’s a very clear short. If it sits flat for a week until OPEX, it’ll be a clear buy for another leg up, then you reevaluate again. T…
> Only to those of us with other work to do, did it look like a flash crash out of nowhere. The market crashed last year because of COVID. Nobody saw that coming. Everyone has been predicting a major correction or recession every year for at least the past 6 years. Claiming that they predicted what was going to happen last year is pretty blatant confirmation bias. People predict a recession every year, and then when…
The posts said that gold would see decent increase (was around 1650$/kg at the time). That everyone with hotel or travel investments was expected to severely lose, and that most such players were putting their liquid money into other investments, to counter the blow, and avoid charges of insider trading. That the Euro would be the most stable currency, when currency trading due to localized pandemic and the lockdowns effecting purchasing power. That the US stock market will see a short boom, with Fed support, and little other investment opportunities, before a crash and world-wide stagnation will become inevitable. That you want to be in two growth niches for the next 3 years: biotech, for it will see free government-funded research & development, when it can profit in the future on new high-margin (HIV/Herpes) vaccines. Plastics industry, because everything will be wrapped in plastic, environmental regulation will be low priority, and it will be overlooked by retail and play-safe pension funds.
Not only did the financial elite predicted it, they predicted it right. Then felt bad for keeping it private, when they saw US senators selling their hotel stock positions after being informed of the situation in China and prospect of a pandemic, so they posted it publicly for everyone to see and with nothing to personally gain.
The pandemic was predicted (+5 -5 year error bars). The correction was predicted. Individual recession predictors are mostly made through survivor bias. When Goldman Sachs sees a market recession upcoming, they don't put that on Twitter or a newspaper to gain a following. They have people pay for what its worth.
It is also fun going back to 4chan /biz section 5 years. People are not saying now: see, I was right. They did better than the majority of the best, highest-paid, analysts and quants and remained anonymous. But I agree it was really hard to not hit a fish when shooting in a barrel.