Deleted User
1Yr
Comment was deleted
1Yr
@Iwanowitsch Time in the market beats timing the market.
••
@Iwanowitsch I wouldn't justify it with iming either, that's exactly what I want to avoid. Always investing the same amount in everything and timing becomes irrelevant, I'm not interested in returns but in risk neutrality
••
Deleted User
1Yr
Comment was deleted
1Yr
@Iwanowitsch You can no more see into the future for years and decades than anyone else before you and consistently outperform the global market for 30 years ;)
You are neither the first nor will you be the last to believe this and fail.
You are neither the first nor will you be the last to believe this and fail.
••
@Metis nana, don't be so pessimistic ;)
It's possible, it just takes MUCH more time
It's possible, it just takes MUCH more time
•
11
•1Yr
@leveragegrinding The statistics show that not even professionals who do the stock market full-time can do this for decades. :D In what way should private investors be able to do that?
•
11
•@Metis Show me the statistics
The only statistics available show that funds never outperform. However, this is largely due to the cost structure.
As an example, just think how simple it has been in recent years; if you bought US tech (IcH mAg IPhoNeS, KauFe AppLe shares), you outperformed.
It's not a question of whether it's down to skill afterwards, it's just a question of having outperformed afterwards :)
The only statistics available show that funds never outperform. However, this is largely due to the cost structure.
As an example, just think how simple it has been in recent years; if you bought US tech (IcH mAg IPhoNeS, KauFe AppLe shares), you outperformed.
It's not a question of whether it's down to skill afterwards, it's just a question of having outperformed afterwards :)
•
11
•1Yr
@leveragegrinding Well. Who puts together the funds? That's right, people who do the stock market full-time. Do you think they would still be working in such companies if they were permanently so successful on the stock market? And it's always easy to say afterwards what was easy. But nobody knows what will be successful in the future.
••
@Metis Do you know how funds and fund managers work?
They usually have countless requirements compared to private investors. Small companies are often not investable, many companies are out because of ESG criteria. A large overweighting of individual companies is also not possible because there are caps.
On the other hand, look at what has happened with good active management. Buffet, Lynch, Graham, Icahn, are of course the spearheads - but there is also a lot between the broad market return of ~9% and "superstars" with 25%+.
The fact that people like Buffet now also have lower returns is also due to the size of the company. With >100 billion cash, you can forget about any small caps - because they no longer have any impact on the overall result.
PS: there are studies on what percentage of private investors beat the market. Depending on the study, it was 5-15%. Yes, not very promising.
But I can tell you: my father is in a stock exchange association run by a Volksbank MA. I've since managed to get my dad out of it and he now also invests in ETFs. The name of the association (similar to "Börsezocker") was actually the program. They only ever bought and sold the "new hot shit". If you don't deal intensively with companies, you will never beat the market. Or you are extremely good at technical analysis. At best, you understand both at least to some extent.
I see both on gq and in my circle of friends that most people simply invest blindly in something. But there are also enough people, both here and in my circle of friends, who have beaten the market for years.
They usually have countless requirements compared to private investors. Small companies are often not investable, many companies are out because of ESG criteria. A large overweighting of individual companies is also not possible because there are caps.
On the other hand, look at what has happened with good active management. Buffet, Lynch, Graham, Icahn, are of course the spearheads - but there is also a lot between the broad market return of ~9% and "superstars" with 25%+.
The fact that people like Buffet now also have lower returns is also due to the size of the company. With >100 billion cash, you can forget about any small caps - because they no longer have any impact on the overall result.
PS: there are studies on what percentage of private investors beat the market. Depending on the study, it was 5-15%. Yes, not very promising.
But I can tell you: my father is in a stock exchange association run by a Volksbank MA. I've since managed to get my dad out of it and he now also invests in ETFs. The name of the association (similar to "Börsezocker") was actually the program. They only ever bought and sold the "new hot shit". If you don't deal intensively with companies, you will never beat the market. Or you are extremely good at technical analysis. At best, you understand both at least to some extent.
I see both on gq and in my circle of friends that most people simply invest blindly in something. But there are also enough people, both here and in my circle of friends, who have beaten the market for years.
•
11
•1Yr
@KevinE And my core statement was that most private investors do not beat the market for years and decades. You confirm this with your statement that 5 to 15% of private investors ever beat the market over a few years. Conversely, this means that 85 to 95% do not beat the market.
••