08-04-2008, 07:52 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Valencia CA
Posts: 1,384
|
There have been managers that have beaten the S&P over pretty long periods. The pertinent question is always for how much risk. I know what you are saying Jay and it is true that many managers or people that try to pass themselves off as managers won't consistently give you returns above the S&P for equal risk. However, to say that beating the S&P is impossible is discounting the results of managers with documented long-term track records and is just giving too much weight to efficient markets theory. Just my opinion.
Last edited by Flystripper; 08-04-2008 at 08:00 PM. |
08-04-2008, 07:57 PM | #12 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,084
|
Quote:
My point is you can't say "any" investment advisor. If you want to say most or the majority, that is a debatable question, which I wouldn't argue with. "Any" means all. There are investment advisors who have track records that beat the S&P by 2-3%. |
|
08-04-2008, 08:09 PM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,177
|
Quote:
"Investment advisors" are the biggest group of con-men in America still yet to be exposed. |
|
08-04-2008, 08:12 PM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,084
|
Quote:
So are you standing by your claim "any" investment advisor................ By the way, the recommendation you gave, what are the 5 years returns on the core equity portfolios. I would also like the 10 year, but you seem to be having difficulty with the 5 year so lets start there. |
|
08-04-2008, 08:17 PM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,177
|
Quote:
|
|
08-04-2008, 08:33 PM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,084
|
Quote:
I agree why argue. Here is one investment advisors track record over the last 5 years. 10.53 vs the S&P of 7.58 net of fees, through June 30th of this year. Therefor no argument, this an investment advisor who can make the 2-3% claim. Oh, the 10 yr is 9.4% vs 2.88% and the fifteen year is 12.5 vs 9.22%. I don't think that someone can be that dumb lucky over that long a time period. If you have a grudge against "some" or even "most" so called investment advisors, you might be justified. However, just because you don't know any good honest ones, you shouldn't be painting them all with such a broad brush, IMHO. |
|
08-04-2008, 09:08 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,431
|
I'm afraid this is getting silly:
BYU71: ex post outperformance JAY: ex ante outperformance Jay, unfortunately didn't make that distinction clear at the beginning but the by the middle of the thread he is clearly is making an argument about ex ante performance and not ex post. A charitable reading of Jay's argument requires that you respond in terms of the ex ante probability of overpeformance. |
08-04-2008, 09:14 PM | #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,084
|
Quote:
|
|
08-04-2008, 09:16 PM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,177
|
Quote:
50% Domestic (break out by large value, large growth, small value, small growth if you have enough to make it worth it) 30% International (ditto) 10% Real Estate/Commodities 10% Bonds And I don't believe it's possible to beat it long term after costs. Long term = 30 - 50 years since that's the investment horizon for most on this board (should be time to death not time to retirement which is a big mistake some make). I should say it's probably possible to beat this strategy long term after costs BUT the risk and probability of choosing the wrong portfolio manager is far greater than the reward you'll get above the index fund approach. P.S. Five year returns mean ABSOLUTELY nothing to me. And ten year returns don't mean much to me at all. |
|
08-04-2008, 09:19 PM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,431
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|