Professional Finance people no better than amateurs

cloud_dog

darkpool wrote: »

a lot of people here seem to have me on "ignore", perhaps you would be kind enough to join them?

No, I only put abusive people on ignore.

You..... I find highly amusing. A bit like you, every fund has its place, and I'm sure there is a village somewhere missing you.

darkpool

dunstonh wrote: »

lazy investing is bad investing. You are almost certainly going to end up with lower returns over the long term if you are a lazy investor.

quite a bold statement, do you have any proof that "buy and hold" is worse than changing UT every couple of years?

darkpool

HelpWhereIcan wrote: »

So, still sticking ridgidly to the belief that a negative or zero α (alpha) means that a fund returns less than the benchmark? Is there something you do not understand?

Yes, i don't understand how you can post a long boring thread that bamboozles people with jargon that implies fund management is ok really, when the academics you quote think fund mangement does not cover the costs of the investor.

"Over the longer term, the study of net returns to investors found that a dominant cross section of fund managers lacked "skill sufficient to produce expected returns that cover the costs funds impose on investors," Fama and French noted."

darkpool

cloud_dog wrote: »

No, I only put abusive people on ignore.

You..... I find highly amusing. A bit like you, every fund has its place, and I'm sure there is a village somewhere missing you.

thanks terrible for that, i find you forgetable.

darkpool

qpop wrote: »

There are a couple of major flaws in the academic arguments put forward by passive investors.

yeah, there will be some flaws in the evidence for passive.

but where is the academic evidence to support active? if there was any would the IFAs here not post it?

Lokolo

darkpool wrote: »

yeah, there will be some flaws in the evidence for passive.

but where is the academic evidence to support active? if there was any would the IFAs here not post it?

Why would the IFAs care about active management? (from a business point of view)

darkpool

Lokolo wrote: »

Why would the IFAs care about active management? (from a business point of view)

ehhhmm i'd have thought it would be nice of them to present evidence that the products they flog actually deliver results...

Lokolo

darkpool wrote: »

ehhhmm i'd have thought it would be nice of them to present evidence that the products they flog actually deliver results...

Oh so you know that Dunston the IFA et al only ever "flog" active funds?

darkpool

how many active UTs are there? 4000?

how many trackers are there .........

cloud_dog

Lokolo wrote: »

Why would the IFAs care about active management? (from a business point of view)

The problem is that darkpoo has a scotoma when it comes to investments. He is very much blinkered in to his one and only obsessive thought that anything other than a tracker is bad.

Even his own re-quote from HWIC information does not state that all managed funds perform badly:

darkpool wrote:

"Over the longer term, the study of net returns to investors found that a dominant cross section of fund managers lacked "skill sufficient to produce expected returns that cover the costs funds impose on investors," Fama and French noted."

This reinforces the fact that there is a significant cohort of managed funds which are not managed well and do not perform or beat their benchmarks. I'm sure this is something most people know and understand and exclude from their investment decisions.

But unfortunately for darkpoo he is unable to accept that things are not black and white, one shoe does not definitely fit all. As I am sure he will continue to demonstrate.

In the world of fairytales he is the ugly sister trying to force the tiny glass slipper on to his foot.