1. Open a bunch of funds.
2. Invest randomly.
3. Close the ones that make a loss.
4. You've got a hamster that apparently make a huge profit.
It's the same trick as the octopus that predicts football winners.
But seriously, it's been shown time and again that picking random stocks generally works better than relying on so-called expert investors.
(
jonbob loves you, Mon 8 Nov 2021, 1:23,
Reply)
riiiight
So all those investment funds that consistently perform above benchmark are the result of the managers just selecting shares at random, are they?
(, Mon 8 Nov 2021, 11:45, Reply)
There’s a difference between investing in long term funds and picking stocks willy-nilly.
(
jonbob loves you, Mon 8 Nov 2021, 17:45,
Reply)
That's not what you said though, is it?
(
evil_andy Stick stick stick stick sticky sticky stick stick, Mon 8 Nov 2021, 22:27,
Reply)
not to mention that as I said, there are dozens of funds that consistently outperform their benchmarks.
And those very same funds are mainly composed of...shares selected by professional investors.
It's almost as if he doesn't actually know anything about it.
(, Tue 9 Nov 2021, 11:11, Reply)
"it's been shown time and again that picking random stocks generally works better than relying on so-called expert investors."
Really? I'd loooooooooove to see some evidence in support of this claim.
News reports of stock/sport predicting animals seemingly only focus on those whose owners claim they are scoring more hits than misses. How many predicting animals are scoring more misses than hits? Where can we look up this information?
Looking forward to reading your peer reviewed studies on this topic.
(
brb man-child cuck corporate supplicant fuck, Mon 8 Nov 2021, 13:49,
Reply)
www.marketwatch.com/story/random-darts-beat-hedge-fund-stars-again-2019-06-26
(
jonbob loves you, Mon 8 Nov 2021, 14:35,
Reply)
Um...
Consider that "the writers threw darts at a stock list in the newspaper" is the limit of the description of their method.
Such a list was unlikely to be randomly generated, considering that it was deemed newsworthy.
It's unlikely that the selection drew randomly from stocks that were generally stagnant, or generally falling. It seems obvious that the non-random selection that was reported in the financial news was probably remarkable in some other way.
Don't get me wrong, economics is pseudo-science at best. But if you choose to buy stocks at random, you are likely to perform less well than if you choose stocks that are trending upwards in value, because some of your random selection will be stagnant or trending downwards.
See if you can find a news story about a random stock/shares selection that returns worse results than a broker's choice.
(
brb man-child cuck corporate supplicant fuck, Mon 8 Nov 2021, 23:00,
Reply)