Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

    • JustAnotherSaver
    • By JustAnotherSaver 11th Aug 19, 8:08 PM
    • 4,154Posts
    • 738Thanks
    For those familiar with Lars Kroijer and his views
    • #1
    • 11th Aug 19, 8:08 PM
    For those familiar with Lars Kroijer and his views 11th Aug 19 at 8:08 PM
    I've been meaning to ask this on here for some time now but keep failing to get round to it. There was a bit in the book that if i remember right i wanted to refer to but it looks like i've left the book at work. There was also a thread on here i saw within the last month or so that made me think of this even moreso but i've ended up leaving it that long that i can't find it now. Typical

    Someone on here, i forget who, suggested i read the book, so i started & a lot of what he says seems to make sense to me. "Do you have an edge" gets repeated throughout. No i certainly do not is my answer.

    A couple years ago i had another book suggested to me on here & Lars Kroijer seems to be basically echoing that one, or at least so far as i've read he seems to be echoing it.

    The more i read it the more i agree that not only do i not have an edge but how do 99% of people have an edge? Likely they do not. They're either lucky or i don't know what.

    Which brings me here. From reading in these forums, i could be wrong but it appears that the majority and not the minority believe they have an edge, certainly amongst the regular posters and it makes me wonder - why is that.

    The other book i had (name of which i forget as i've loaned it out although i can try and get the title if it helps any) basically suggested cheap multi asset index trackers (i'm hoping i've got the correct term down there, i have a habit of not doing!) are the best way forward for the average Joe and that historically they outperform managed funds.

    I think this is the point someone on here steps in and says absolutely everything is managed anyway. I don't know enough to argue that point but clearly that person must know what these others are on about when they refer to managed vs otherwise?
    The Lars Kroijer Investing Demystified book i'm reading seems to be going down the same path, as far as i've read.

    The thread on here that i referred to which was posted recently, many spoke of actively managed funds in their portfolio and how it is either totally actively managed or mostly actively managed. So when i'm reading that most people don't have this 'edge' that Lars Kroijer mentions in his book, i'm wondering ... how come most of the regulars on MSE actually do??

    I understand that the responses to this are probably going to result in me questioning life itself and my mind will explode from the pushing and pulling - how people on both sides of the fence make sense and i don't know who's 'right' but what the hell. After reading the book i'm just curious on the stance from others.

Page 6
    • Sailtheworld
    • By Sailtheworld 20th Aug 19, 7:49 AM
    • 538 Posts
    • 559 Thanks
    Average life span of a listed company on the LSE has reduced to 15 years now. Number of listed companies has decreased over the past 20 years with an increasing number in private ownership.
    Originally posted by Thrugelmir
    You make it sound as if companies simply disappear without trace taking investors money with them. I would've thought this is a good reason to choose a tracker - it's hard enough choosing winners without having to take a view on longevity. Then there's the first world problem of 'losing' a company and deciding what to do with all the cash and having to make further decisions without an edge.
    • Voyager2002
    • By Voyager2002 20th Aug 19, 9:13 AM
    • 13,422 Posts
    • 9,248 Thanks
    I'm not sure that this makes sense, given that the stock market is a zero sum game.

    If you're able to buy in to companies with good fundamentals at good prices and never sell, and manage to remain diversified, then great.

    But if most of your gains are actually going to come from selling shares, then the price set by the traders matters. Which means your investments are bets with or against them.
    Originally posted by sendu

    Except that when our long-term investor is buying, the point of sale is in the distant future. So s/he is betting against tomorrow's traders, who will certainly be working on the basis of information that is different from what is available to traders today
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

353Posts Today

2,791Users online

Martin's Twitter