Re: maybe this can help...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All that link 'establishes" is that someone else besides mises likes to theorize all kinds of things that are theoretially possible but which data from the real world shows doesn't happen.
[/ QUOTE ]
Are you gonna show some real data that investors have not made money in the long run beyond random luck or do we still have to stick with your word?
[/ QUOTE ]
The return streams of Renaissance, Bridgewater, AQR, SAC, George Soros, Warren Buffet etc.
they have all CRUSHED the markets for very long periods of time. in all these cases it is virtually indisputable that it isn't based on luck alone. the processes these managers have are solid and for every 5-10 year period of all of them they have generated information ratios (excess returns/std. deviation) of over 1.0 (i.e. for every unit of risk, they generated 1 unit of return. that is extremely impressive). markets are definitely beatable. it is ahrd to do it but it can very clearly be done. this is provable in the abstract without this data also since efficiency stems from the rationality of the participants and all participants are not rational, do not have similar time horizons, do not have similar risk aversions, and do not all do the same level of research.
some participants aren't allowed to do some things while other can do far more (i.e. some managers aren't allowed to short stocks while some only have 50% symmetric leeway (i.e. can only be long or short 50% rather than 100% vs. their benchmark)
if you can identify clear areas where there are irrational bets being made, then you can generate returns not based on luck alone.
i don't really think that much can be up for debate.
Barron
|