Professional Finance people no better than amateurs

bigfreddiel

thread now closed

it was fun

fj

Aegis

Still not closed.

I believe there's an interesting ongoing topic still being discussed (little to do with the opening post), so would hope the team will leave it open.

darkpool

cloud_dog wrote: »

Oh, come on darkpoo........ answer the question!

(we're all ears you know...... waiting on your next regurgitation).

sorry what question? people seem to ask me a lot of questions here, unfortunately a lot of them are dull questions which i can't be bothered answering.

darkpool

Lokolo wrote: »

Why would I ask you anything about derivatives? Given you said that UTs are managed funds I don't think anything that comes out of your mouth you actually know.

you don't need to know about sharpes and R2s to write derivatives.

financial engineering has been going on for thousands of years, do you think Thales knew about Sharpe when he cornered the market in olive presses? Do you think the Venetian merchants knew about R2 when they find a way to "lend" money without suffering eternal damnation?

No they didn't.

I write put/ calls in ftse 100 companies.

http://www.rasmusen.org/x/2005/09/14/thales-of-miletus-aristotle-the-oil-harvest-and-monopoly/

opinions4u

bigfreddiel wrote: »

i started it - i'll end it

It would appear not!

HelpWhereIcan

darkpool wrote: »

sorry what question? people seem to ask me a lot of questions here, unfortunately a lot of them are dull questions which i can't be bothered answering.

This one

HelpWhereIcan wrote: »

use the alphas quoted to give us your insight into the difference in performance of the two funds over 3 years.

Tell you what, I'll rephrase it again.

Which fund returned the most after 3 years and how much above the fund which returned less - 1%, 3%, 20%, another figure?

darkpool wrote: »

you don't need to know about sharpes and R2s to write derivatives.

Possibly not but it has already been pointed out to you that they are considered 'basics' and, being the expert you are, you could be expected to understand them.

Even allowing for the fact you obviously do not, you have made a lot of the report that discusses the proportion of funds that have zero or positive alpha.

darkpool wrote: »

Soooo 20% of funds have negative alpha and 1.9% have positive alpha, circa 78% will match a tracker.

So surely you accept people should understand what alpha actually means in terms of relative performance between Trackers and Actively Managed funds.

Or are you starting to doubt what you understand about 'Alpha'?

darkpool

HelpWhereIcan wrote: »

Possibly not but it has already been pointed out to you that they are considered 'basics' and, being the expert you are, you could be expected to understand them.

i've been buying and selling shares for twenty years, i've been derivative writing for circa 6 years. i've never heard of sharpe and R2 before.

i usually find when people are losing an argument they start bringing technical jargon in....

Perhaps the best way of getting over your "own goal" of mentioning a document that showed active managment didn't work is to produce evidence that it does work?

Instead of attacking me why don't you start a thread that tells people what IFAs do that justifies 160 pounds an hour? So far you've only produced evidence that shows IFAs are dispensible....

HelpWhereIcan

darkpool wrote: »

i've been buying and selling shares for twenty years, i've been derivative writing for circa 6 years. i've never heard of sharpe and R2 before.

i usually find when people are losing an argument they start bringing technical jargon in....

Perhaps the best way of getting over your "own goal" of mentioning a document that showed active managment didn't work is to produce evidence that it does work?

Instead of attacking me why don't you start a thread that tells people what IFAs do that justifies 160 pounds an hour? So far you've only produced evidence that shows IFAs are dispensible....

Oh dear.

You really are struggling aren't you.

Allow me to help you out, break it down and check your interpretation of that study (and alpha):

Is your assertion that the study says 78% of managed funds will return the same as a tracker and only 1.9% will return more?

i.e. if two funds have the same alpha they have the same absolute return?

darkpool

HelpWhereIcan wrote: »

Oh dear.

You really are struggling aren't you.

Allow me to help you out, break it down and check your interpretation of that study (and alpha):

Is your assertion that the study says 78% of managed funds will return the same as a tracker and only 1.9% will return more?

i.e. if two funds have the same alpha they have the same absolute return?

are you really an IFA? or are you an aggrieved ex customer of an IFA?

you post all these links that shows active fund management isn't worth it.

The study you linked to says this....

"Expressed as a percentage of the fund population, the proportion of funds with positive alphas is extremely low."

Seems clear to me......

HelpWhereIcan

darkpool wrote: »

"Expressed as a percentage of the fund population, the proportion of funds with positive alphas is extremely low."

Seems clear to me......

Wow!

Let's try again shall we?

Define Positive Alpha.

What does it tell us?