4 ms·

I hope this is not "above me" I don't know as much as the average hacker would probably know about markets. I'm 20 and don't have THAT much knowledge. >>give u

I hope this is not "above me" I don't know as much as the average hacker would probably know about markets. I'm 20 and don't have THAT much knowledge. >>give up, and invest in index funds. Alright, Any book recommendations for that?

patio11 16y ago
It is not a commentary on you, but rather on markets. On average, investor performance is market average minus expenses, and this holds regardless of investor sophistication.
- btilly 16y ago
  Actually my understanding is that investor performance is usually better than the market average, but not by enough to meet expenses. Therefore after market returns usually lose. Markets are not perfect. But the imperfections are small. There was a study I saw a decade ago about whether any funds produced better results than chance. Due to the difficulty of modeling the possibilities, only mutual funds were considered. So people like George Soros did not get counted. In the end 2 names had performed high enough that, with 95% confidence, their performance was not by chance. Their names were Peter Lynch and Warren Buffett. Peter Lynch retired before he got to the 99% confidence. Interestingly both Peter Lynch and Warren Buffett recommend low cost index funds for average investors.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - adrianscott 16y ago
    "Due to the difficulty of modeling the possibilities" ;) love it... the research field is littered with bad assumptions or self-imposed constraints leading to bad conclusions... intellectual laziness, imho. If one doesn't want to become one of the best investors one should go home (i.e. not bother trying to trade, other than for entertainment). There are investors that are consistently among the best, such that it is not a matter of chance. (check out Bayes theorem; Buffett also gives a nice explanation of this)

4 ms·

I hope this is not "above me" I don't know as much as the average hacker would probably know about markets. I'm 20 and don't have THAT much knowledge. >>give u

by Retailslave 16y ago

patio11 16y ago
It is not a commentary on you, but rather on markets. On average, investor performance is market average minus expenses, and this holds regardless of investor sophistication.
- btilly 16y ago
  Actually my understanding is that investor performance is usually better than the market average, but not by enough to meet expenses. Therefore after market returns usually lose. Markets are not perfect. But the imperfections are small. There was a study I saw a decade ago about whether any funds produced better results than chance. Due to the difficulty of modeling the possibilities, only mutual funds were considered. So people like George Soros did not get counted. In the end 2 names had performed high enough that, with 95% confidence, their performance was not by chance. Their names were Peter Lynch and Warren Buffett. Peter Lynch retired before he got to the 99% confidence. Interestingly both Peter Lynch and Warren Buffett recommend low cost index funds for average investors.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - adrianscott 16y ago
    "Due to the difficulty of modeling the possibilities" ;) love it... the research field is littered with bad assumptions or self-imposed constraints leading to bad conclusions... intellectual laziness, imho. If one doesn't want to become one of the best investors one should go home (i.e. not bother trying to trade, other than for entertainment). There are investors that are consistently among the best, such that it is not a matter of chance. (check out Bayes theorem; Buffett also gives a nice explanation of this)