Help me rebalance my failing S&S ISAs Portfolio - Sept 2011

Ark_Welder

darkpool wrote: »

so if active management is soooooo good why can you AM employees not present some evidence? what a selling point it would be if fund managers could proof they could outperform the market? without the evidence it makes you look like your adverts are all spin.

PS i think i did put some evidence up that showed AM was for[STRIKE] mugs [/STRIKE]less sophisticated investors

:rotfl:

Which is why I sometimes flit between the thoughts that you are just a wind-up merchant, or you bought into - sorry, I meant 'were sold' - a dot.dot.techno in 99/00 era and are still a bit emotional about it.

But thanks for the fun, either way

darkpool

kar999 wrote: »

I'm not an employee but I posted examples of 2 funds above which have outperformed the market. No random coin tossing involved but simple active selection.

but no ones disputing that some funds will outperform the market. i'm saying that overall that fund management does not add value. do you not think it possible that your 2 funds were just lucky?

i believe in "efficient market theory" and "zero game". do you believe in them?

darkpool

Ark_Welder wrote: »

:rotfl:

Which is why I sometimes flit between the thoughts that you are just a wind-up merchant, or you bought into - sorry, I meant 'were sold' - a dot.dot.techno in 99/00 era and are still a bit emotional about it.

But thanks for the fun, either way

no, back in the late 90's i saw this tv programme on day traders. it showed all these people with no knowledge of economics/ money trading the markets. i remember thinking that it was a signal to steer clear.

you seem like the type of person that day trades?

Ark_Welder

darkpool wrote: »

no, back in the late 90's i saw this tv programme on day traders. it showed all these people with no knowledge of economics/ money trading the markets. i remember thinking that it was a signal to steer clear.

you seem like the type of person that day trades?

Now, now! Last time you tried this it was with a 'mostly UT investor'

I notice you didn't want to bet on it this time, though.

darkpool

Ark_Welder wrote: »

Now, now! Last time you tried this it was with a 'mostly UT investor'

I notice you didn't want to bet on it this time, though.

sorry, i have no idea what you are on about.

if you write something interesting in future i might respond.

Ark_Welder

darkpool wrote: »

sorry, i have no idea what you are on about.

if you write something interesting in future i might respond.

You must be a fish then, possibly a goldfish?

Aegis

darkpool wrote: »

i can't remember, but do you not work in the fund management industry? if you do some might consider you biased.....

I don't, but thanks for the attempted ad hominem type of insintuation.

yeah, i did have to head out. what's the point of having one of the best shotguns in the world if i don't use it?

My point is that you headed out, then later obviously returned and still haven't provided the evidence even though you've had plenty of time to post on here that those who don't believe as you do are "mugs".

so if active management is soooooo good why can you AM employees not present some evidence? what a selling point it would be if fund managers could proof they could outperform the market? without the evidence it makes you look like your adverts are all spin.

Active managers can't prove it because there's no proof either way, and any study carried out on active management would be considered flawed by passive advocates if it didn't include all the obvious dog funds as well as the ones from more reputable investment companies. I'd like to see it anyway, but regardless, it doesn't exist as far as I'm aware.

PS i think i did put some evidence up that showed AM was for[STRIKE] mugs [/STRIKE]less sophisticated investors

Nothing even remotely conclusive.

kar999

darkpool wrote: »

... do you not think it possible that your 2 funds were just lucky?

No.

They are run by well respected fund managers who have excellant track records at outperforming the market.

i believe in "efficient market theory" and "zero game". do you believe in them?

No.

Meanwhile, while academics point to a large body of evidence in support of EMH, an equal amount of dissension also exists. For example,investors, such as Warren Buffett have consistently beaten the market over long periods of time, which by definition is impossible according to the EMH. Detractors of the EMH also point to events, such as the 1987 stock market crash when the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) fell by over 20% in a single day, as evidence that stock prices can seriously deviate from their fair values.

Aegis

darkpool wrote: »

but no ones disputing that some funds will outperform the market. i'm saying that overall that fund management does not add value. do you not think it possible that your 2 funds were just lucky?

i believe in "efficient market theory" and "zero game". do you believe in them?

In order to believe the efficient market hypothesis, you need to accept that:

• Information is always fully available and understood by all investors
• There are no barriers to trade
• There are no costs to trade
• The current share price always and immediately reflects all information available about that stock

I don't personally accept any of these criteria for perfect efficiency, and believe that all markets are therefore inefficient to some degree. Some markets, like the US, are heavily traded and well understood, therefore I don't buy active funds in that market. Others, like emerging markets, are subject to information asymmetry and therefore have opportunities for buying undervalued stocks and selling overvalued ones.

darkpool

Aegis wrote: »

I don't, but thanks for the attempted ad hominem type of insintuation.

Active managers can't prove it because there's no proof either way, and any study carried out on active management would be considered flawed by passive advocates if it didn't include all the obvious dog funds as well as the ones from more reputable investment companies. I'd like to see it anyway, but regardless, it doesn't exist as far as I'm aware.

so what is your profession? or what profession are you trying to get into?

so you admit there is no evidence that active managers, on average, outperform the benchmarks. i think some of us have been saying that all along......

i just don't understand what you mean by "include all the obvious dog funds"? you seem to be saying that if you ignore all the poorly performing funds the others would beat the benchmark? how many would you ignore? 90%? do you actually know what an average is?