Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (83843)	5/1/2007 2:06:31 PM
From: chowder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206331

>>> i don't think it's possible to "prove" investor skill in a statistically significant sense, <<< This is where I disagree with his comment. Although a lot of fund managers and others take satisfaction in a bear market of losing less than the indices (example, only down 10% while the market is down 25%), real skill comes to the table by showing long term market beating averages. In other words, don't show me a profit by being in cash or bonds, show me a double digit yearly gain in a bear market. That would take skill, IMO. It's not what you do when things are going well. It's what you do when they aren't, where skill comes into play.

To: carranza2 who wrote (83843)	5/1/2007 4:48:12 PM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 206331

What about beating the various benchmarks - S&P, Dow, NASDAQ, Russell, etc. - over a relatively consistent time frame? Say 10 years or so. that's pretty much what Bernstein tested. he looked at all the funds with 10.5 years of results from 1987 onward (the study was done in 1997). he found over 450 funds in the Principia database, which he compared to their benchmarks in Aggressive Growth, Growth, G&I, Equity Income, Small, and International. only one of those funds exhibited "skill" in a statistically significant manner. ironically, seven of the funds exhibited a statistically significant LACK of skill. as Bernstein summarizes: "Out of over 400 diversified funds studied during the 1987-97 period, by definition half showed above average performance, but in almost all cases it seemed likely that this was due to random variation, and not skill. In only one case was there unequivocal statistical evidence of skill. When the same tests were applied to major league batters, abundant evidence of skill was found. "By way of comparison, consider the best performing mutual fund for any given year. Such funds tend to do somewhat better than average the next year, but no better than average in following years. In contrast, in every case the National League batting champions demonstrated strong statistical evidence of skill in the 11 year period following their batting crowns. Put another way, batting performance persists, mutual fund performance does not." efficientfrontier.com if you really look at the studies, there is no evidence that investor skill has any persistence. this creates a dilemma for the would-be active investor: am i just an overconfident buffoon? as i said before, my problem is not that i don't believe Bernstein; it's that i think the markets are overvalued so the indexes themselves are a bad investment. so i am kind of a reluctant active investor.