Author Topic: Year to date investment returns  (Read 31005 times)

Terrestrial

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #100 on: July 10, 2015, 01:31:13 PM »
Interesting studies.

I do want to point out that individual stock investing is not synonymous with 'trading', and don't dispute that transaction costs can have a great effect on returns.  But...I hold most of the stuff I buy for longer periods of time and pay ~$5 commissions on blocks of 5-10k of stock at a time.  It's also possible these days to pay no commissions at all, though I like my bank and that level of commission does not bother me for the convenience I get.  My overall net fees on an averaged yearly basis are not much different than what I pay on the funds portion of my my portfolio for VTSAX or similar (~0.05-0.10%)...sometimes it's less depending on how long the position has been held as there are only entry/exit costs and not the recurring yearly commission there is with a fund.  I do not have an 'advice' component to my fees as the OP does.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2015, 01:35:50 PM by Terrestrial »

waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3434
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #101 on: July 10, 2015, 01:38:33 PM »
That study looks at day traders and many other studies have shown that the less frequently you trade, the higher your returns are.  No one here is advocating day trading.

Sure, but within the universe of day trading - ie, picking stocks, only 1/6 of 1% showed persistent outperformance. All of those day traders would be better off not day trading, probably, but setting that aside, very few of them were actually any good at it. One could extrapolate that not very many people are good at picking stocks to hold for longer terms, either, though that isn't directly addressed.

I'm a bit dubious about some of the conclusions reached in the first paper, partially because it was never published (always a bad sign when you don't pass peer review) and also because they are only finding a 10% correlation between outperformance from year to year. That's more than randomness, but it's not much, either. It doesn't appear they are attempting to make any caveats about trading costs/taxes but that's hard to quantify, probably.

-W

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2852
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #102 on: July 10, 2015, 01:52:21 PM »
That study looks at day traders and many other studies have shown that the less frequently you trade, the higher your returns are.  No one here is advocating day trading.

Sure, but within the universe of day trading - ie, picking stocks, only 1/6 of 1% showed persistent outperformance. All of those day traders would be better off not day trading, probably, but setting that aside, very few of them were actually any good at it. One could extrapolate that not very many people are good at picking stocks to hold for longer terms, either, though that isn't directly addressed.

It's silly to extrapolate from a day trading study to look at long-term performance when there are long-term studies available.

Quote
I'm a bit dubious about some of the conclusions reached in the first paper, partially because it was never published (always a bad sign when you don't pass peer review) and also because they are only finding a 10% correlation between outperformance from year to year. That's more than randomness, but it's not much, either. It doesn't appear they are attempting to make any caveats about trading costs/taxes but that's hard to quantify, probably.

-W

It's strange to me that people put out papers that aren't published in these fields, but it has been cited over 150 times.  Regardless, there are plenty of other papers are find performance persistance among individual investors.

milesdividendmd

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1913
  • Location: Portlandia
    • Miles Dividend MD
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #103 on: July 10, 2015, 02:00:39 PM »
It is of course possible to beat the market in a statistically significant manner. It's just incredibly rare.

More to the point active stock picking winners beat the broad market by a little bit, but active stock picking losers lose to the market by a lot.

So if you think you're going to beat the market by stockpicking what you're essentially saying is "I would prefer a 20% chance of beating the market by a little bit in exchange for an 80% chance of losing to it by a lot."

It's not what I would call a smart bet.

And paying someone for their advice is a real losing proposition since you add unnecessary expense to your already bad odds.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7396
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #104 on: July 10, 2015, 02:13:32 PM »
It's strange to me that people put out papers that aren't published in these fields, but it has been cited over 150 times.  Regardless, there are plenty of other papers are find performance persistance among individual investors.

In some fields, like economics, it can take 2+ years to get a paper published. That's why they have working papers that get cited a lot.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2852
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #105 on: July 10, 2015, 02:14:22 PM »
It is of course possible to beat the market in a statistically significant manner. It's just incredibly rare.

You would be amazed how many people say it's impossible.

Quote
More to the point active stock picking winners beat the broad market by a little bit, but active stock picking losers lose to the market by a lot.

So if you think you're going to beat the market by stockpicking what you're essentially saying is "I would prefer a 20% chance of beating the market by a little bit in exchange for an 80% chance of losing to it by a lot."

I don't think this is generally true.  Most studies I've seen show a large majority individual investor performance pretty close to the average: http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/odean/papers%20current%20versions/individual_investor_performance_final.pdf

ender

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5028
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #106 on: July 10, 2015, 02:21:25 PM »
Maybe I'm naive for assuming this, but it sure seems likely that if the majority of people who spend their fulltime jobs trying to beat the market (active fund managers) do not as an aggregate do so in a meaningful and consistent way, then I probably cannot do better than them in my free time.

I have yet to read compelling reasons why so many of those fund managers cannot consistently beat the market but so many individuals seem to be able to do so.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2852
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #107 on: July 10, 2015, 02:22:44 PM »
Maybe I'm naive for assuming this, but it sure seems likely that if the majority of people who spend their fulltime jobs trying to beat the market (active fund managers) do not as an aggregate do so in a meaningful and consistent way, then I probably cannot do better than them in my free time.

I have yet to read compelling reasons why so many of those fund managers cannot consistently beat the market but so many individuals seem to be able to do so.

I could give you a list of reasons why I think this is the case, but I think it's better to look at the data and see that there are, in fact, differences.

milesdividendmd

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1913
  • Location: Portlandia
    • Miles Dividend MD
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #108 on: July 10, 2015, 03:14:29 PM »

It is of course possible to beat the market in a statistically significant manner. It's just incredibly rare.

You would be amazed how many people say it's impossible.

Quote
More to the point active stock picking winners beat the broad market by a little bit, but active stock picking losers lose to the market by a lot.

So if you think you're going to beat the market by stockpicking what you're essentially saying is "I would prefer a 20% chance of beating the market by a little bit in exchange for an 80% chance of losing to it by a lot."

I don't think this is generally true.  Most studies I've seen show a large majority individual investor performance pretty close to the average: http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/odean/papers%20current%20versions/individual_investor_performance_final.pdf

milesdividendmd

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1913
  • Location: Portlandia
    • Miles Dividend MD
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #109 on: July 10, 2015, 03:14:57 PM »
Am I the only one who can't read your link?  Is it an iPhone thing?

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2852
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #110 on: July 10, 2015, 03:18:56 PM »
Am I the only one who can't read your link?  Is it an iPhone thing?

It's a direct link to a PDF, but I can open it just fine in two browsers and on my iPhone.

KBecks2

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 618
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #111 on: July 10, 2015, 04:05:37 PM »
Maybe I'm naive for assuming this, but it sure seems likely that if the majority of people who spend their fulltime jobs trying to beat the market (active fund managers) do not as an aggregate do so in a meaningful and consistent way, then I probably cannot do better than them in my free time.

I have yet to read compelling reasons why so many of those fund managers cannot consistently beat the market but so many individuals seem to be able to do so.

Mutual fund managers have huge piles of money they have to move, that makes it more difficult.  Also, they are under pressure to make each quarter's returns look good for marketing.  Individual investors do not have to worry about either thing.

a1smith

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 360
  • Location: 44 15.478N, 082 50.088W
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #112 on: July 10, 2015, 04:11:57 PM »
It's strange to me that people put out papers that aren't published in these fields, but it has been cited over 150 times.  Regardless, there are plenty of other papers are find performance persistance among individual investors.

In some fields, like economics, it can take 2+ years to get a paper published. That's why they have working papers that get cited a lot.

And patents can take even longer.  It's a little better now that USPTO has expanded.

a1smith

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 360
  • Location: 44 15.478N, 082 50.088W
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #113 on: July 10, 2015, 05:05:16 PM »
It is of course possible to beat the market in a statistically significant manner. It's just incredibly rare.

You would be amazed how many people say it's impossible.

Quote
More to the point active stock picking winners beat the broad market by a little bit, but active stock picking losers lose to the market by a lot.

So if you think you're going to beat the market by stockpicking what you're essentially saying is "I would prefer a 20% chance of beating the market by a little bit in exchange for an 80% chance of losing to it by a lot."

I don't think this is generally true.  Most studies I've seen show a large majority individual investor performance pretty close to the average: http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/odean/papers%20current%20versions/individual_investor_performance_final.pdf

And, looking at Figure 1, the quintile (20%) with the lowest turnover beat VFIAX.  So, 20% of individual investors in this study are beating the S&P500.  The 2nd quintile with the next lowest turnover basically matches VFIAX.  So, 40% of individual investors are matching or beating VFIAX.

This makes great sense - research your stocks well and choose ones that you can hold for a long time to reduce costs.  Invest, don't trade!  This is why the fictitious? Fidelity study showed that dead investors had the best returns; they were at the far end of the quintile with the lowest turnover (no trades.)  :-D

For example, I typically hold stocks at least five years.  Let's use these nominal values: $6000 average trade, $9.95 commision (AMTD), and we'll use a return similar to what's in paper, 18% return.  So, year end balances are: $6000, $7080, $8354, $9858, $11633, $13,727  (rounded to $1).  For simplicity, I just took 0.05% of year end balance for each year - VFIAX has total fee of $25.33 over the 5 years.

With 1 buy, 1 sell of stock we have $19.90 in commissions in five years.  This is an upper bound since holding period is usually longer.  You can get lower commissions, Schwab is $8.95, Vanguard is $7.  Of course, you need to multiply this by how many stocks you own and figure out your own holding period.  This is just an example to illustrate that the commissions are not outrageously higher than the ER on a low cost index fund.

Just in case someone thinks this paper is garbage look at the thank you list for reviewers on the bottom of page 1 - it includes Fama and French, among others.

The nice thing about passive investing is if you have low returns one year you can blame the market and not yourself!  ;-)

milesdividendmd

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1913
  • Location: Portlandia
    • Miles Dividend MD
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #114 on: July 10, 2015, 07:11:51 PM »


It is of course possible to beat the market in a statistically significant manner. It's just incredibly rare.

You would be amazed how many people say it's impossible.

Quote
More to the point active stock picking winners beat the broad market by a little bit, but active stock picking losers lose to the market by a lot.

So if you think you're going to beat the market by stockpicking what you're essentially saying is "I would prefer a 20% chance of beating the market by a little bit in exchange for an 80% chance of losing to it by a lot."

I don't think this is generally true.  Most studies I've seen show a large majority individual investor performance pretty close to the average: http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/odean/papers%20current%20versions/individual_investor_performance_final.pdf

Able to open the link on my computer finally. And....

You read the study wrong.

Figure one which you refer to shows returns based on quintiles of trading activity. It finds that the more you trade the less your net returns. Not surprising.

Table 4 is more to the point and it finds that the 25th percentile active trader loses to the market by 0.73% monthly (8.76 annually!)

Contrast this to the 75th percentile trader who beats the market by only 0.5 % monthly (6% annual).

The median trader also loses by 1.68 annually and the 99th percentile trader beats the market by 53% annually (impressive!) while the 1 percentile investor loses by a cringeworthy 58%! 

And this is only a 5 year period studied. All data suggest that the longer the time period the less likely it is that the active investor beats the market.

All in all your study perfectly proved my original statement.

Thanks!

mrpercentage

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
  • Location: PHX, AZ
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #115 on: July 10, 2015, 07:36:51 PM »
I don't know about paying for service. Im too cheap. Jim Cramer and Seeking Alpha free version for me. I pretty much make my own picks though.
These are my total holdings and total returns YTD, take from it what you may. They change daily with all the crap going on. Some of the losers were pretty good winners a month ago.

Apple -6.8%
Boeing +0.29%
Disney +16.98%
Escalade Sports +14.28%
Ford -8.26%
JP Morgan +1.66%
Navios Marine -8%
Platform Specialty -9.15%

Im heaviest in Disney and not selling anything

Did you buy the stocks this year?  My records (which may not be perfect either) show...
AAPL up 9.82% YTD
DIS up 21.8% YTD

That's from taking the price on December 31 (or Jan 1) and comparing to todays prices.   Those are not *my* returns though, as my buy prices and times are from earlier dates.  My rough returns on AAPL are 68%  and DIS 44%.
Yes. All with the last 3-5 months. I continually add to these positions lowering the total return rate. This also accounts for fees on scottrade. I use robinhood now but some of these stocks are in scottrade.
If you buy a share of Disney and it goes up 30% then you buy another share your total return is 15%. That's how I judge myself. In total. Past and current together. Back to feb 2nd for individual stocks. I don't count mutual funds. I don't run those but am breaking even with them right now. I was killing them last month.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2015, 07:49:01 PM by mrpercentage »

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2852
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #116 on: July 10, 2015, 08:40:54 PM »


It is of course possible to beat the market in a statistically significant manner. It's just incredibly rare.

You would be amazed how many people say it's impossible.

Quote
More to the point active stock picking winners beat the broad market by a little bit, but active stock picking losers lose to the market by a lot.

So if you think you're going to beat the market by stockpicking what you're essentially saying is "I would prefer a 20% chance of beating the market by a little bit in exchange for an 80% chance of losing to it by a lot."

I don't think this is generally true.  Most studies I've seen show a large majority individual investor performance pretty close to the average: http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/odean/papers%20current%20versions/individual_investor_performance_final.pdf

Able to open the link on my computer finally. And....

You read the study wrong.

Figure one which you refer to shows returns based on quintiles of trading activity. It finds that the more you trade the less your net returns. Not surprising.

Table 4 is more to the point and it finds that the 25th percentile active trader loses to the market by 0.73% monthly (8.76 annually!)

Contrast this to the 75th percentile trader who beats the market by only 0.5 % monthly (6% annual).

The median trader also loses by 1.68 annually and the 99th percentile trader beats the market by 53% annually (impressive!) while the 1 percentile investor loses by a cringeworthy 58%! 

And this is only a 5 year period studied. All data suggest that the longer the time period the less likely it is that the active investor beats the market.

All in all your study perfectly proved my original statement.

Thanks!

I am really getting tired of people on this forum telling me I'm wrong, when they're wrong.  You said:

So if you think you're going to beat the market by stockpicking what you're essentially saying is "I would prefer a 20% chance of beating the market by a little bit in exchange for an 80% chance of losing to it by a lot."

when, in fact, the 75th percentile person beat the average by 35%.  So no, 80% do not lose to the market (let alone by a lot, which is what you said).

If you're going to be wrong, that's fine, but don't tell me I'm wrong when you are.

milesdividendmd

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1913
  • Location: Portlandia
    • Miles Dividend MD
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #117 on: July 10, 2015, 10:19:34 PM »



It is of course possible to beat the market in a statistically significant manner. It's just incredibly rare.

You would be amazed how many people say it's impossible.

Quote
More to the point active stock picking winners beat the broad market by a little bit, but active stock picking losers lose to the market by a lot.

So if you think you're going to beat the market by stockpicking what you're essentially saying is "I would prefer a 20% chance of beating the market by a little bit in exchange for an 80% chance of losing to it by a lot."

I don't think this is generally true.  Most studies I've seen show a large majority individual investor performance pretty close to the average: http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/odean/papers%20current%20versions/individual_investor_performance_final.pdf

Able to open the link on my computer finally. And....

You read the study wrong.

Figure one which you refer to shows returns based on quintiles of trading activity. It finds that the more you trade the less your net returns. Not surprising.

Table 4 is more to the point and it finds that the 25th percentile active trader loses to the market by 0.73% monthly (8.76 annually!)

Contrast this to the 75th percentile trader who beats the market by only 0.5 % monthly (6% annual).

The median trader also loses by 1.68 annually and the 99th percentile trader beats the market by 53% annually (impressive!) while the 1 percentile investor loses by a cringeworthy 58%! 

And this is only a 5 year period studied. All data suggest that the longer the time period the less likely it is that the active investor beats the market.

All in all your study perfectly proved my original statement.

Thanks!

I am really getting tired of people on this forum telling me I'm wrong, when they're wrong.  You said:

So if you think you're going to beat the market by stockpicking what you're essentially saying is "I would prefer a 20% chance of beating the market by a little bit in exchange for an 80% chance of losing to it by a lot."

when, in fact, the 75th percentile person beat the average by 35%.  So no, 80% do not lose to the market (let alone by a lot, which is what you said).

If you're going to be wrong, that's fine, but don't tell me I'm wrong when you are.

No. You are wrong. Admit it and move on.

You cited a table that was wholly irrelevant to the topic at hand.

The table that was relevant showed that over SHORT time horizons.

1.  Most active investors lost significantly to the market.

2.  The lucky few who beat the market beat it by a lesser degree than those who lost to the market lost to it by.

That less than 75 % lost to the market is proof of nothing but a short time period in this particular study.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2852
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #118 on: July 10, 2015, 10:30:27 PM »



It is of course possible to beat the market in a statistically significant manner. It's just incredibly rare.

You would be amazed how many people say it's impossible.

Quote
More to the point active stock picking winners beat the broad market by a little bit, but active stock picking losers lose to the market by a lot.

So if you think you're going to beat the market by stockpicking what you're essentially saying is "I would prefer a 20% chance of beating the market by a little bit in exchange for an 80% chance of losing to it by a lot."

I don't think this is generally true.  Most studies I've seen show a large majority individual investor performance pretty close to the average: http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/odean/papers%20current%20versions/individual_investor_performance_final.pdf

Able to open the link on my computer finally. And....

You read the study wrong.

Figure one which you refer to shows returns based on quintiles of trading activity. It finds that the more you trade the less your net returns. Not surprising.

Table 4 is more to the point and it finds that the 25th percentile active trader loses to the market by 0.73% monthly (8.76 annually!)

Contrast this to the 75th percentile trader who beats the market by only 0.5 % monthly (6% annual).

The median trader also loses by 1.68 annually and the 99th percentile trader beats the market by 53% annually (impressive!) while the 1 percentile investor loses by a cringeworthy 58%! 

And this is only a 5 year period studied. All data suggest that the longer the time period the less likely it is that the active investor beats the market.

All in all your study perfectly proved my original statement.

Thanks!

I am really getting tired of people on this forum telling me I'm wrong, when they're wrong.  You said:

So if you think you're going to beat the market by stockpicking what you're essentially saying is "I would prefer a 20% chance of beating the market by a little bit in exchange for an 80% chance of losing to it by a lot."

when, in fact, the 75th percentile person beat the average by 35%.  So no, 80% do not lose to the market (let alone by a lot, which is what you said).

If you're going to be wrong, that's fine, but don't tell me I'm wrong when you are.

No. You are wrong. Admit it and move on.

You cited a table that was wholly irrelevant to the topic at hand.

The table that was relevant showed that over SHORT time horizons.

1.  Most active investors lost significantly to the market.

2.  The lucky few who beat the market beat it by a lesser degree than those who lost to the market lost to it by.

That less than 75 % lost to the market is proof of nothing but a short time period in this particular study.
[/quote

Keep moving those goalposts.  You said something verifiably wrong and now you're saying something else.  And you did so in such a nice manner!

Interest Compound

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 658
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #119 on: July 10, 2015, 10:37:46 PM »
Every study, ever, as Sol pointed out, says that picking stocks doesn't work. Some people succeed, but at about the rate you'd expect from random chance (and the winners fail to consistently win, as you'd expect from chance, as well).

This just isn't true.  There are plenty of studies that show a small percentage of individual investors beat the market, and that outperformance in one period is predictive of outperformance in the next period.  This percentage is small (10-20%), which is why the average person should be in index funds, but just because most people can't do it isn't a reason to lie and say that no one can beat the market.
Some examples:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=364000
a review of many studies: http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/odean/papers%20current%20versions/behavior%20of%20individual%20investors.pdf

The longest time-frame in these papers is 7 years. In a forum dedicated to Early Retirement, the investment horizon here is much longer than 7 years. Attempting to beat the market over a 30-60 year timeframe is what we're talking about here.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2852
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #120 on: July 10, 2015, 10:45:57 PM »
Every study, ever, as Sol pointed out, says that picking stocks doesn't work. Some people succeed, but at about the rate you'd expect from random chance (and the winners fail to consistently win, as you'd expect from chance, as well).

This just isn't true.  There are plenty of studies that show a small percentage of individual investors beat the market, and that outperformance in one period is predictive of outperformance in the next period.  This percentage is small (10-20%), which is why the average person should be in index funds, but just because most people can't do it isn't a reason to lie and say that no one can beat the market.
Some examples:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=364000
a review of many studies: http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/odean/papers%20current%20versions/behavior%20of%20individual%20investors.pdf

The longest time-frame in these papers is 7 years. In a forum dedicated to Early Retirement, the investment horizon here is much longer than 7 years. Attempting to beat the market over a 30-60 year timeframe is what we're talking about here.

Several studies have shown that top-performing individual investors in one time period are more likely to outperform in subsequent time periods. Interestingly, this effect doesn't happen for mutual funds. 

a1smith

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 360
  • Location: 44 15.478N, 082 50.088W
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #121 on: July 10, 2015, 11:08:49 PM »


It is of course possible to beat the market in a statistically significant manner. It's just incredibly rare.

You would be amazed how many people say it's impossible.

Quote
More to the point active stock picking winners beat the broad market by a little bit, but active stock picking losers lose to the market by a lot.

So if you think you're going to beat the market by stockpicking what you're essentially saying is "I would prefer a 20% chance of beating the market by a little bit in exchange for an 80% chance of losing to it by a lot."

I don't think this is generally true.  Most studies I've seen show a large majority individual investor performance pretty close to the average: http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/odean/papers%20current%20versions/individual_investor_performance_final.pdf

Able to open the link on my computer finally. And....

You read the study wrong.

Figure one which you refer to shows returns based on quintiles of trading activity. It finds that the more you trade the less your net returns. Not surprising.

Table 4 is more to the point and it finds that the 25th percentile active trader loses to the market by 0.73% monthly (8.76 annually!)

Contrast this to the 75th percentile trader who beats the market by only 0.5 % monthly (6% annual).

The median trader also loses by 1.68 annually and the 99th percentile trader beats the market by 53% annually (impressive!) while the 1 percentile investor loses by a cringeworthy 58%! 

And this is only a 5 year period studied. All data suggest that the longer the time period the less likely it is that the active investor beats the market.

All in all your study perfectly proved my original statement.

Thanks!

Well, now I've had time to finish reading the paper; I went to my son's baseball game.  :-)  I'll keep this civil!  :-D

I don't believe I've read (interpreted) the study wrong.  (NB - I referenced Figure 1, not beltim.) Actually, Figure 1 and Table IV are just two very similar ways of looking at the same data.  Figure 1 is really just explaining where the difference in performance enumerated in Table IV is coming from - trading costs.  Maybe one thing that confused you is that the lower quintiles (less trading) in Figure 1 perform better whereas in Table IV the higher percentiles perform better.  So, you could say that the authors reversed the x axis in Figure 1.  In my opinion, it would have been better to have higher performance (lower trading) in the higher quintiles rather than lower performance (higher trading.)

One note about trading costs - looking at the mean values in Table 1 you can see that the mean commission was 1.58% for purchases and 1.45% for sales.  Using the mean purchase/sale values this works out to an average $376 for a round trip!  So, one thing to remember is that trading costs have decreased tremendously since the mid 90's.

And a note about bid/ask spread - looking at Equation (1) on page 780 you can see that the authors are estimating a bid/ask spread% by using CRSP end of day bid/ask prices; they have to do this because they have no record of what the actual bid/ask spread was at the time of the trade.  I'm still evaluating this formula and will have to go through Appendix A in more detail to see exactly what they are doing.  However, their estimate seems suspect to me right now.  Empirically, it is important to remember that the minimum bid/ask increment at the time for almost all stocks was an eighth, so $0.125.  Those days are long gone.

So, comparing trading costs and bid/ask spreads between when the study was done and now shows that there is on the order of a 10X decrease in both.

Now, on to Table IV.  In section C. Cross-Sectional Variation in Performance starting on page 790 the authors discuss the results in Table IV:
Quote
Though 49.3 percent of households outperform a value-weighted market index before transaction costs, only 43.4 percent outperform the index after costs. Nonetheless, many households perform very well: 25 percent of all households beat the market, after accounting for transaction costs, by more than 0.50 percent per month ~more than six percent annually!.

So, from Figure 1, I estimated that 40% either beat or match the index. The more precise answer is that 43.4% of the households outperform the index after costs.  A better, but very similar, answer.  Also, note that 25% of the households beat the market by at least 6%/year!  The Figure 1 data is averaged within quintiles so it is "blurred" somewhat; hence leading to the difference in the estimate.  The 43.4% value jives with the data in Table IV; that means the zero crossing is at the 56.6th percentile.  Since the 50th percentile is at -0.14% the data seems to be consistent.

I just noticed you made a post while I'm typing this so I'll address one comment you made there:

Quote
The lucky few who beat the market beat it by a lesser degree than those who lost to the market lost to it by.

Well, it's not possible to make that statement based off of the data in Table IV.  We would need to have the entire plot and then integrate the area under the curve for the lucky 43.4% of the households and then compare it to the (negative) area under (over?) the curve for the unlucky 56.6%.  The best investor beat the index by 580.2% annually while the very worst investor underperformed the index by -20.85%/month (not sure how you do that for a whole year!!).  So, some very interesting things are going on in the top and bottom 1% of the binomial distribution.

And, to cover both sides of the story, here is what I consider the biggest "hole" in the paper.  While the authors try to say that this study is good in up/down markets because 20 of the 72 months were down months the 1991-1996 time period was mostly very positive.  Here is S&P500 for 1991-1996.  All six years are positive and 1995-1996 were the first two years of the Internet bubble.  So, everyone was a genius!!  :-D  Maybe they should redo the exact same study for the next six years now that helicopter Ben has landed.

Interest Compound

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 658
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #122 on: July 10, 2015, 11:09:28 PM »
Every study, ever, as Sol pointed out, says that picking stocks doesn't work. Some people succeed, but at about the rate you'd expect from random chance (and the winners fail to consistently win, as you'd expect from chance, as well).

This just isn't true.  There are plenty of studies that show a small percentage of individual investors beat the market, and that outperformance in one period is predictive of outperformance in the next period.  This percentage is small (10-20%), which is why the average person should be in index funds, but just because most people can't do it isn't a reason to lie and say that no one can beat the market.
Some examples:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=364000
a review of many studies: http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/odean/papers%20current%20versions/behavior%20of%20individual%20investors.pdf

The longest time-frame in these papers is 7 years. In a forum dedicated to Early Retirement, the investment horizon here is much longer than 7 years. Attempting to beat the market over a 30-60 year timeframe is what we're talking about here.

Several studies have shown that top-performing individual investors in one time period are more likely to outperform in subsequent time periods. Interestingly, this effect doesn't happen for mutual funds.

The problem is the time periods aren't very long, and it becomes much harder to succeed over longer periods. It's easy to fail when trying to beat the market over the long-term, you can be right a thousand times, but you only have to be wrong once.

KBecks2

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 618
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #123 on: July 11, 2015, 06:10:44 AM »
No, when you are right mote than wrong, your wins cushion your losses.

So if you're up 10 percent a year for 5 years and the then down 10 percent, you're ahead.   So it's incorrect to say one bad year will ruin your investment.

I agree with what has been said about long holding periods for individual stocks.  The goal is not to trade or sell unless the business changes.  I am learning to do hedges, options and shorts, all sparingly, to help in rocky waters.  Writing options for income can add to returns.  This stuff is like a hobby,  it is fun.  Still, it is not day trading.

Since I am up 8% ytd, I get a slightly higher spot to go from now.

Du you all want a 3rd quarter report?

Aphalite

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 425
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #124 on: July 11, 2015, 06:20:45 AM »
The problem is the time periods aren't very long, and it becomes much harder to succeed over longer periods. It's easy to fail when trying to beat the market over the long-term, you can be right a thousand times, but you only have to be wrong once.

That is a very poor understanding of math

If you're +6% for 10 straight years, then -10% for one year because you refused as an investor to get involved with a senseless runup in technology and airline firms, have you done better for yourself than you could have indexing?

I think maybe the misinterpretation here is that the fanatic indexers are thinking about the results of trying to pick MUTUAL FUNDS trying to beat the market. In which case, you also have the expense and turnover hurdle to get over - not so in old fashioned non-index buy and hold.

If your goal is to beat the market return, you don't have to beat the market every year, you just have to beat it over 3-5 year time frames. I'm sure there's lots of investors that did not beat the market in the 1998-2000 NASDAQ runup, but when the dust had settled in 2002, they came out ahead. I would say that a lot of investors who pick individual stocks don't actually care about beating the market, they hold individual stocks because they don't want any part of certain sectors of the market, or specific companies. Indexing is fine when you have no interest in studying businesses, but to say that indexing is the only way and stock picking is idiotic is missing the point.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2015, 06:25:19 AM by Aphalite »

Retire-Canada

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6835
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #125 on: July 11, 2015, 08:23:50 AM »

That is a very poor understanding of math

If you're +6% for 10 straight years, then -10% for one year because you refused as an investor to get involved with a senseless runup in technology and airline firms, have you done better for yourself than you could have indexing?

I think the point he was making that if you hold indivudal stocks you are less diversified and therefore the downside to a mistake or bad luck can be catastrophic.

The OP linked to Saul's investing plan in her second post. In his top 7 stocks he has ~75% of this portfolio. Over 50% in the top 3.

Interest Compound

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 658
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #126 on: July 11, 2015, 08:53:42 AM »
If you can't see how being wrong once can doom your portfolio, you shouldn't be actively trading.

If you can't see how increasing the time period from 5-7 years to 30-60 years increases the chances of this happening, you shouldn't be actively trading.

Aphalite

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 425
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #127 on: July 11, 2015, 08:59:17 AM »
If you can't see how being wrong once can doom your portfolio, you shouldn't be actively trading.

If you can't see how increasing the time period from 5-7 years to 30-60 years increases the chances of this happening, you shouldn't be actively trading.

This gets to the crux of the misunderstanding and why there's condemnation from indexers when we have this discussion. Not a single person here has advocated for active trading. Buying individual companies and holding is not active trading, you're describing renting companies and hoping for a profit. It's bizarre that everyone on this forum is willing to learn about financial independence, DIY, reducing waste, but yet isn't willing to reevaluate Bogle dogma when presented with the facts. You're arguing against something that none of us are defending. I agree with you, you shouldn't be actively trading, period.

Aphalite

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 425
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #128 on: July 11, 2015, 09:02:13 AM »
I think the point he was making that if you hold indivudal stocks you are less diversified and therefore the downside to a mistake or bad luck can be catastrophic.

The OP linked to Saul's investing plan in her second post. In his top 7 stocks he has ~75% of this portfolio. Over 50% in the top 3.

I agree, it can definitely be catastrophic. But diversification isn't a magic bullet, if you bought the NASDAQ index in 2000, you were technically diversified with thousands of stocks, but results in 2002 were catastrophic. Can you say the same thing about someone holding a three stock 100% concentrated portfolio of Johnson&Johnson, Nestle, and Exxon?

Interest Compound

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 658
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #129 on: July 11, 2015, 09:25:46 AM »
If you can't see how being wrong once can doom your portfolio, you shouldn't be actively trading.

If you can't see how increasing the time period from 5-7 years to 30-60 years increases the chances of this happening, you shouldn't be actively trading.

This gets to the crux of the misunderstanding and why there's condemnation from indexers when we have this discussion. Not a single person here has advocated for active trading. Buying individual companies and holding is not active trading, you're describing renting companies and hoping for a profit. It's bizarre that everyone on this forum is willing to learn about financial independence, DIY, reducing waste, but yet isn't willing to reevaluate Bogle dogma when presented with the facts. You're arguing against something that none of us are defending. I agree with you, you shouldn't be actively trading, period.

There is no misunderstanding here. KBecks2 readily admits it. Look through some of his/her posts, you'll statements like, "My active stocks are".

To make it more clear:

If you can't see how being wrong once can doom your portfolio, you shouldn't deviate from total market indexes.

If you can't see how increasing the time period from 5-7 years to 30-60 years increases the chances of this happening, you shouldn't deviate from total market indexes.

Aphalite

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 425
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #130 on: July 11, 2015, 09:49:55 AM »
There is no misunderstanding here. KBecks2 readily admits it. Look through some of his/her posts, you'll statements like, "My active stocks are".

I agree with what has been said about long holding periods for individual stocks.  The goal is not to trade or sell unless the business changes.  I am learning to do hedges, options and shorts, all sparingly, to help in rocky waters.  Writing options for income can add to returns.  This stuff is like a hobby,  it is fun.  Still, it is not day trading.

I do want to point out that individual stock investing is not synonymous with 'trading', and don't dispute that transaction costs can have a great effect on returns.

Maybe read all of her words and not just focus in on "active"?

To make it more clear:

If you can't see how being wrong once can doom your portfolio, you shouldn't deviate from total market indexes.

If you can't see how increasing the time period from 5-7 years to 30-60 years increases the chances of this happening, you shouldn't deviate from total market indexes.

I think you meant to say From my knowledge of Bogle quotes and time spent on bogleheads. In all cases, you shouldn't deviate from total market indexes

Bogle never said investing in individual stocks is for fools. He said chasing mutual fund returns is foolish. That is a very wise sentiment. As an individual stock owner, once you get outsized gains, you keep it. When you are buying actively managed mutual funds, past performance (which does not indicate future performance) is something you will never have participated in. That's where the advice of "no one can beat the market consistently every year" becomes useful. You don't HAVE to beat it every year as a stock holder, you just need to beat it some years. Plus, as an individual investor, you don't have the 1-2% hurdle that mutual funds have.

Here's a story you might find interesting about your hero: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303332904579224351143883302
« Last Edit: July 11, 2015, 09:53:26 AM by Aphalite »

milesdividendmd

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1913
  • Location: Portlandia
    • Miles Dividend MD
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #131 on: July 11, 2015, 10:37:51 AM »




It is of course possible to beat the market in a statistically significant manner. It's just incredibly rare.

You would be amazed how many people say it's impossible.

Quote
More to the point active stock picking winners beat the broad market by a little bit, but active stock picking losers lose to the market by a lot.

So if you think you're going to beat the market by stockpicking what you're essentially saying is "I would prefer a 20% chance of beating the market by a little bit in exchange for an 80% chance of losing to it by a lot."

I don't think this is generally true.  Most studies I've seen show a large majority individual investor performance pretty close to the average: http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/odean/papers%20current%20versions/individual_investor_performance_final.pdf

Able to open the link on my computer finally. And....

You read the study wrong.

Figure one which you refer to shows returns based on quintiles of trading activity. It finds that the more you trade the less your net returns. Not surprising.

Table 4 is more to the point and it finds that the 25th percentile active trader loses to the market by 0.73% monthly (8.76 annually!)

Contrast this to the 75th percentile trader who beats the market by only 0.5 % monthly (6% annual).

The median trader also loses by 1.68 annually and the 99th percentile trader beats the market by 53% annually (impressive!) while the 1 percentile investor loses by a cringeworthy 58%! 

And this is only a 5 year period studied. All data suggest that the longer the time period the less likely it is that the active investor beats the market.

All in all your study perfectly proved my original statement.

Thanks!

I am really getting tired of people on this forum telling me I'm wrong, when they're wrong.  You said:

So if you think you're going to beat the market by stockpicking what you're essentially saying is "I would prefer a 20% chance of beating the market by a little bit in exchange for an 80% chance of losing to it by a lot."

when, in fact, the 75th percentile person beat the average by 35%.  So no, 80% do not lose to the market (let alone by a lot, which is what you said).

If you're going to be wrong, that's fine, but don't tell me I'm wrong when you are.

No. You are wrong. Admit it and move on.

You cited a table that was wholly irrelevant to the topic at hand.

The table that was relevant showed that over SHORT time horizons.

1.  Most active investors lost significantly to the market.

2.  The lucky few who beat the market beat it by a lesser degree than those who lost to the market lost to it by.

That less than 75 % lost to the market is proof of nothing but a short time period in this particular study.
[/quote

Keep moving those goalposts.  You said something verifiably wrong and now you're saying something else.  And you did so in such a nice manner!

Feel free to bone up on the active vs passive debate.

I've seen dozens of these studies cited and they virtually all the same finding.

1.  Over short time horizons, 1-5 years, active strategies lose about 60% of the time.

2. Over long time horizons active loses 80% of the time.

Your cited study fits neatly into these observations.

Feel free to worry about goal posts and personal affronts to your arguments, but those are the lessons that anyone considering an active strategy should consider.

And full disclosure: I employ an active strategy.

Interest Compound

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 658
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #132 on: July 11, 2015, 10:57:51 AM »
There is no misunderstanding here. KBecks2 readily admits it. Look through some of his/her posts, you'll statements like, "My active stocks are".

I agree with what has been said about long holding periods for individual stocks.  The goal is not to trade or sell unless the business changes.  I am learning to do hedges, options and shorts, all sparingly, to help in rocky waters.  Writing options for income can add to returns.  This stuff is like a hobby,  it is fun.  Still, it is not day trading.

I do want to point out that individual stock investing is not synonymous with 'trading', and don't dispute that transaction costs can have a great effect on returns.

Maybe read all of her words and not just focus in on "active"?

To make it more clear:

If you can't see how being wrong once can doom your portfolio, you shouldn't deviate from total market indexes.

If you can't see how increasing the time period from 5-7 years to 30-60 years increases the chances of this happening, you shouldn't deviate from total market indexes.

I think you meant to say From my knowledge of Bogle quotes and time spent on bogleheads. In all cases, you shouldn't deviate from total market indexes

Bogle never said investing in individual stocks is for fools. He said chasing mutual fund returns is foolish. That is a very wise sentiment. As an individual stock owner, once you get outsized gains, you keep it. When you are buying actively managed mutual funds, past performance (which does not indicate future performance) is something you will never have participated in. That's where the advice of "no one can beat the market consistently every year" becomes useful. You don't HAVE to beat it every year as a stock holder, you just need to beat it some years. Plus, as an individual investor, you don't have the 1-2% hurdle that mutual funds have.

Here's a story you might find interesting about your hero: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303332904579224351143883302

This is not relevant to my position.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2852
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #133 on: July 11, 2015, 11:03:55 AM »
Feel free to bone up on the active vs passive debate.

I've seen dozens of these studies cited and they virtually all the same finding.

1.  Over short time horizons, 1-5 years, active strategies lose about 60% of the time.

2. Over long time horizons active loses 80% of the time.

Your cited study fits neatly into these observations.

Feel free to worry about goal posts and personal affronts to your arguments, but those are the lessons that anyone considering an active strategy should consider.

And full disclosure: I employ an active strategy.

See, there's a big difference between pointing out that there are probably going to be differences between a 5 year period and a longer period and "this study supports my assertion that 80% of individual investors lose to the market by a lot" that pretty quickly turned into "this study, like all the others that I've read, shows that 40% outperform in the short term."  Of course, it would be even better to actually cite a study.

milesdividendmd

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1913
  • Location: Portlandia
    • Miles Dividend MD
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #134 on: July 11, 2015, 12:05:37 PM »
I like how you added "short term" to my statement. Hilarious.

You're getting pretty desperate.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2852
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #135 on: July 11, 2015, 12:17:48 PM »
I like how you added "short term" to my statement. Hilarious.

You're getting pretty desperate.

I've seen dozens of these studies cited and they virtually all the same finding.

1.  Over short time horizons, 1-5 years, active strategies lose about 60% of the time.

2. Over long time horizons active loses 80% of the time.

Your cited study fits neatly into these observations.

Feel free to worry about goal posts and personal affronts to your arguments, but those are the lessons that anyone considering an active strategy should consider.

And full disclosure: I employ an active strategy.

Do you even read what you write?

milesdividendmd

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1913
  • Location: Portlandia
    • Miles Dividend MD
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #136 on: July 11, 2015, 12:43:57 PM »

I like how you added "short term" to my statement. Hilarious.

You're getting pretty desperate.

I've seen dozens of these studies cited and they virtually all the same finding.

1.  Over short time horizons, 1-5 years, active strategies lose about 60% of the time.

2. Over long time horizons active loses 80% of the time.

Your cited study fits neatly into these observations.

Feel free to worry about goal posts and personal affronts to your arguments, but those are the lessons that anyone considering an active strategy should consider.

And full disclosure: I employ an active strategy.

Do you even read what you write?

That statement is validated by your cited study. You obviously haven't read the study you cited. (As evidenced by your previous attempted use of figure 1.)

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2852
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #137 on: July 11, 2015, 12:54:40 PM »

I like how you added "short term" to my statement. Hilarious.

You're getting pretty desperate.

I've seen dozens of these studies cited and they virtually all the same finding.

1.  Over short time horizons, 1-5 years, active strategies lose about 60% of the time.

2. Over long time horizons active loses 80% of the time.

Your cited study fits neatly into these observations.

Feel free to worry about goal posts and personal affronts to your arguments, but those are the lessons that anyone considering an active strategy should consider.

And full disclosure: I employ an active strategy.

Do you even read what you write?

That statement is validated by your cited study. You obviously haven't read the study you cited. (As evidenced by your previous attempted use of figure 1.)

Are you high? 

1) I never referenced figure 1.
2) The bolded statement is certainly validated by the study I cited.  I'm not arguing that it doesn't.
3) More to the point, it shows that I did not add "short term" to your statement - that was in your comment that I responded to.

It seems like you're arguing with some combination of yourself and a1smith.  I posted this study which shows that over a 5 year period:
1) well over 20% beat the market
2) there's a significant fraction of investors who significantly outperform the market
3) of the people who lose to the market, a significant fraction lose by a little instead of a lot

It seems like your only disagreement now (unlike your original "you read it wrong" comment) is that the study only looks at 5-year periods.  That's true.  Can you provide better studies to show the long term performance?

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7396
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #138 on: July 11, 2015, 01:03:19 PM »
Why don't we just call it here? I don't see anything gained by your last dozen back-and-forths. You're going to disagree. Up to you guys.

milesdividendmd

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1913
  • Location: Portlandia
    • Miles Dividend MD
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #139 on: July 11, 2015, 01:09:01 PM »
You are right, I ascribed the table 1 gaff to you, when in fact it was A1smith.  Sorry!

My only point is that the study you cited perfectly agrees with my original contention about the performance of active versus passive traders (over long tome periods).  Another reader bollocksed up the interpretation of the study, not you.  again, apologies.

Now that we are in agreement that over long time horizons the vast majority of active traders will lose to passive, and that the losers will lose by more than the active traders will win by (despite their poor base rate odds of success) and I have apologized to you for ascribing someone else's sloppy reading of a study to you, perhaps we can move on.

a1smith

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 360
  • Location: 44 15.478N, 082 50.088W
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #140 on: July 11, 2015, 04:27:46 PM »
Here's a story you might find interesting about your hero: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303332904579224351143883302

I read the article - there must be some interesting discussions at the dinner table!  :-)

Hint for people that want to read the article but don't have WSJ subscription: go to the link, you 'll see log in or subscribe to read article.  Copy article title into google and search.  You'll get link that let's you read article for free.  Actually, it's the same weblink but if you go to the WSJ page from Google then you get to see the whole article with no subscription.  Works on Barron's too!

I also read another interesting article on Alpholio.com that was mentioned in the comments - Active vs. Passive in the Bogle Family  They took a second look at BOGLX performance.

Quote
However, this statistic is misleading. As of the end of November 2013, the 10-year annualized return of the Bogle Small Cap Growth Fund (BOGLX) was 8.89%. The annualized return of the iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM), which follows the funds stated benchmark, was 9.01% in the same period. Moreover, the iShares Russell 2000 Growth ETF (IWO), implementing a benchmark more relevant to the fund, returned an annualized 9.19%.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7396
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #141 on: July 11, 2015, 04:39:49 PM »
Here's a story you might find interesting about your hero: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303332904579224351143883302

I read the article - there must be some interesting discussions at the dinner table!  :-)

Hint for people that want to read the article but don't have WSJ subscription: go to the link, you 'll see log in or subscribe to read article.  Copy article title into google and search.  You'll get link that let's you read article for free.  Actually, it's the same weblink but if you go to the WSJ page from Google then you get to see the whole article with no subscription.  Works on Barron's too!

I also read another interesting article on Alpholio.com that was mentioned in the comments - Active vs. Passive in the Bogle Family  They took a second look at BOGLX performance.

Quote
However, this statistic is misleading. As of the end of November 2013, the 10-year annualized return of the Bogle Small Cap Growth Fund (BOGLX) was 8.89%. The annualized return of the iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM), which follows the funds stated benchmark, was 9.01% in the same period. Moreover, the iShares Russell 2000 Growth ETF (IWO), implementing a benchmark more relevant to the fund, returned an annualized 9.19%.

He's doing what we do in America--cashing in on celebrity, regardless of merit.

Abe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1265
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #142 on: July 11, 2015, 05:32:30 PM »
I have followed the index investing philosophy and have made 3% return this year on ~$200k. Required only 10 minutes for me to do (opportunity cost ~2 dollars). $600/minute of effort is not a bad return! That is after the 0.05% index fees.

20% VGSAX (Small cap vanguard fund)
69% VTSAX (Total stock market fund)
3% VGSIX (REIT fund)
8% various individual stocks for speculation

a1smith

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 360
  • Location: 44 15.478N, 082 50.088W
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #143 on: July 11, 2015, 09:38:57 PM »
I have followed the index investing philosophy and have made 3% return this year on ~$200k. Required only 10 minutes for me to do (opportunity cost ~2 dollars). $600/minute of effort is not a bad return! That is after the 0.05% index fees.

20% VGSAX (Small cap vanguard fund)
69% VTSAX (Total stock market fund)
3% VGSIX (REIT fund)
8% various individual stocks for speculation

Your overall expense ratio is 0.0603% for a total of about $120.60 per year.

You better be careful saying the word speculation around here!  :-D

%FundER
20%VSGAX0.09%
69%VTSAX0.05%
3%VGSIX   0.26%
8%stocks0.00%
0.0603%

a1smith

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 360
  • Location: 44 15.478N, 082 50.088W
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #144 on: July 11, 2015, 09:55:13 PM »
You are right, I ascribed the table 1 gaff to you, when in fact it was A1smith.  Sorry!

My only point is that the study you cited perfectly agrees with my original contention about the performance of active versus passive traders (over long tome periods).  Another reader bollocksed up the interpretation of the study, not you.  again, apologies.

Now that we are in agreement that over long time horizons the vast majority of active traders will lose to passive, and that the losers will lose by more than the active traders will win by (despite their poor base rate odds of success) and I have apologized to you for ascribing someone else's sloppy reading of a study to you, perhaps we can move on.

More trolling?  Sorry, I won't respond other than to say that someone can read the study and my comments and judge for themselves.

Bateaux

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1568
  • Location: Port Vincent
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #145 on: July 13, 2015, 09:59:08 PM »
Interesting few weeks.  Only a week or so ago my portfolio was down enough to buy a new luxury SUV.  A few days ago I was down enough to buy a nice new compact car.  Now I'm only down enough to buy a clunker with no A/C.  In coming sessions I may actually be up again.  I'm just dollar cost averaging more and more money in.  I'm currently only up about 5% for the year. 

mrpercentage

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
  • Location: PHX, AZ
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #146 on: July 14, 2015, 03:24:32 AM »
4.2%

I took a recent hit in some positions that that I am holding. Thanks Greece. I wish I went with what I knew and was 100% Disney but the rest of my portfolio rebounds well. Not selling a thing and currently building cash.

In the interest of showing just how fast things can change my YTD is +6.24% today
Im starting to think YTD is poor metric and much longer versions need to be used-- or just sticking to the spread between your portfolio and the S&P 500. Honestly the closer I watch the market the more chaotic it appears

Kaspian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1536
  • Location: Canada
    • My Necronomicon of Badassity
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #147 on: July 16, 2015, 11:13:45 AM »
Im starting to think YTD is poor metric and much longer versions need to be used-- or just sticking to the spread between your portfolio and the S&P 500...

YTD is possibly the worst metric anyone could use next to taking investment advice from Honey Boo Boo.

Quote

Source:  http://awealthofcommonsense.com/my-advice-for-calpers/

Judging your portfolio based on one years worth of results is a great way to over-react, make unnecessary changes, take avoidable risks or abandon a legitimate process. In a diversified portfolio, one year returns are meaningless. Its the long-term that you need to worry about in terms of performance


mrpercentage

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
  • Location: PHX, AZ
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #148 on: July 16, 2015, 05:36:41 PM »
You're right +7.38% today.
This market is nuts.

fb132

  • Guest
Re: Year to date investment returns
« Reply #149 on: July 16, 2015, 07:02:29 PM »
You're right +7.38% today.
This market is nuts.
It's like the Greece thing never happened...it also helped that amazon had their prime day thing + Netflix getting high earnings...My networth alone went up by 3K$ in one day.