Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

SIUYA

Can Funds Outperform the Market?

Recommended Posts

After a few recent discussions about funds, out performance, random markets and efficient markets, rather than bog other threads down with diversions, maybe this thread could deal with the question.

Can funds outperform the market?

 

a few helpful starter packs....

 

http://www.hedgefundprofiler.com/Documents/154.pdf

http://perspectives.pictet.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Trading-Strategies-Final.pdf

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31824474/Performance-and-Persistence-of-CTAs-Parametric-Evidence

http://www.turtletrader.com/GL-SwissHedge.pdf

http://www.intercontilimited.com/mfutsarchive/perf_persistance_in_alternate_invest.pdf

 

I quite like the last one....but I think the conclusion will be inconclusive!

Edited by SIUYA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some nice references SIUYA, but why start up the same thread again when it was already answered in the prior thread? You know you will never convince the people who don't want to know or those who don't wish to admit to reality. You only open yourself up to people who will come in and criticise ther evidence without any real evidence. For traders who are experienced and profitable, well they already know the answer. It is obvious quite frankly. There are many people in the funds management business though (just like any business) who really do not understand what they are doing. Some get lucky occasionally, but mostly end up failing over time. To determine which are which though involves watching their performance numbers through a full market/commodity cycle or even longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Siuya,

 

The research you have posted points to either under-performance or inconsistent performance. Most of the links explore other facets such as hf vs cta vs fohf comparisons, fees, a managers ability to duplicate performance, etc, and only casually examine whether a fund out performs the asset class they trade. Under-performance makes sense too since trading is a combination of anticipatory and reactionary actions and frequently, the reactions are late, and what is anticipated frequently does not happen.

 

You ask: what are we doing here then?" in the joke of the day thread I posted a joke:

 

Two lawyers are walking through the woods and they hear the roar of a lion. Lawyer #1 starts running and stops when he sees that #2 is sitting on the ground. Frantic, #1 says to #2, "What are you doing?" #1 calmly replies" I am putting my running shoes on." #1 then says," what are you crazy? you can't outrun a lion!" While tying his last shoelace, #2 looks at #1 and says" I don't have to outrun the lion. All I have to do is outrun you."

 

Similarly in trading, when we take money from the market we take it from other traders. I focus on where I expect other traders to be willing to lose money and if they are there on a particular day to take money from them. If there aren't traders there who are willing to lose, then I am out of luck if I try to take money from them. Generally and personally, I make the most money when weak traders are stubborn and stuck short or stubborn and stuck long. There are certainly days when I do beat the market, but for me, beating the market is a windfall profit and not a goal. I care less about the market, sentiment, etc and more about the current direction and the potential for order flow to continue in that direction. All that should matter to a trader is that he can take money from other traders and not if they can beat the market.

 

As a trader, one needs to determine if that money that he can make is enough to warrant trading for a living or if he would be better off giving his money to someone else to trade, etc, etc. All of which are personal decisions.

 

We see a lot of traders consuming their efforts with trying to determine tomorrows newspaper. I am focused on where these guys will be willing to cough up their cookies when they are wrong.

 

The research that implies consistent out performance of the market is generally industry propaganda. Lots of people fall for it.

 

MM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some nice references SIUYA, but why start up the same thread again when it was already answered in the prior thread? You know you will never convince the people who don't want to know or those who don't wish to admit to reality. You only open yourself up to people who will come in and criticise ther evidence without any real evidence. For traders who are experienced and profitable, well they already know the answer. It is obvious quite frankly. There are many people in the funds management business though (just like any business) who really do not understand what they are doing. Some get lucky occasionally, but mostly end up failing over time. To determine which are which though involves watching their performance numbers through a full market/commodity cycle or even longer.

 

I think you will find...regardless of your thoughts on others peoples mental capacities....it was not answered....plus it is a different question as to if markets are random. That is all.

Discussions are discussions....if they are --" I am right you're an idiot end of story".....then despite your 30 yrs in the industry you have not learnt a thing ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@SIUYA? Are you going off the rails as well? What on earth are you on about when referring to other peoples mental capcities? Are you taking your own thread off topic already? LOL I thought you created this thread to discuss the same topic that was discussed in the prior thread? And people wonder why they have difficulty making money in the markets LOL. I'm sorry you feel the question as to whether markets are non-random wasn't answered in the other thread, but in fact it was, and extremely clearly to those who chose to keep an open mind and read what was written, rather than all the other smoke and mirror posts by people.

If this thread is 'Can funds outperform the market" then yes, with 100%+ certainty. I can name hundred of funds that out perform the markets, both short term, medium term and long term. Any markets. Although strictly speaking I have no idea which markets you are referring to as there are literally tens of thousands of them out there. May I suggest you reask your question but in a more defined manner, as clearly the answer is rather absurdly obvious. Just as there are many funds that underperform the 'markets'. So what? I'm sure you have a higher goal in asking such a question. But unless you tell us then, there really is nothing to discuss, as your thread question was just answered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Siuya,

 

The research you have posted points to either under-performance or inconsistent performance. Most of the links explore other facets such as hf vs cta vs fohf comparisons, fees, a managers ability to duplicate performance, etc, and only casually examine whether a fund out performs the asset class they trade. ..............

The research that implies consistent out performance of the market is generally industry propaganda. Lots of people fall for it.

 

I agree thats why they are an example for discussion .....point being that so far these seem to be the only ones offered as studies for either argument. Can you furnish a published study that shows one way or the other?

particularly one that backs your point of view? Same for Adrian...

 

well then lets see the proof......and equally so, not just some "academic Propaganda"

 

You ask: what are we doing here then?....

 

As a trader, one needs to determine if that money that he can make is enough to warrant trading for a living or if he would be better off giving his money to someone else to trade, etc, etc. All of which are personal decisions.

 

MM

 

I can agree with aspects of this, but the question is still the same.

If you cant/no one can beat the markets on a consistent basis - why trade?

Even with your thoughts of just beating others, you may as well just borrow and invest in the market.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I can agree with aspects of this, but the question is still the same.

If you cant/no one can beat the markets on a consistent basis - why trade?

Even with your thoughts of just beating others, you may as well just borrow and invest in the market.....

 

I am not suggesting that no one can make money trading or that no one can beat the market. I am certain that there are people who can beat the market, and I am certain that we all can't beat the market. I personally do fine with the amount of risk I am willing to take. Buy and hold, for someone like myself is far too risky even if in the long run I would, possibly, be better off.

 

What happens in the long run, may or may not correlate with what the market does during the period of my lifetime or yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@SIUYA? Are you going off the rails as well? What on earth are you on about when referring to other peoples mental capcities? Are you taking your own thread off topic already? LOL I thought you created this thread to discuss the same topic that was discussed in the prior thread? And people wonder why they have difficulty making money in the markets LOL. I'm sorry you feel the question as to whether markets are non-random wasn't answered in the other thread, but in fact it was, and extremely clearly to those who chose to keep an open mind and read what was written, rather than all the other smoke and mirror posts by people.

If this thread is 'Can funds outperform the market" then yes, with 100%+ certainty. I can name hundred of funds that out perform the markets, both short term, medium term and long term. Any markets. Although strictly speaking I have no idea which markets you are referring to as there are literally tens of thousands of them out there. May I suggest you reask your question but in a more defined manner, as clearly the answer is rather absurdly obvious. Just as there are many funds that underperform the 'markets'. So what? I'm sure you have a higher goal in asking such a question. But unless you tell us then, there really is nothing to discuss, as your thread question was just answered.

 

no not off the rails...it was a dig (that you obviously missed ) at your " You only open yourself up to people who will come in and criticise ther evidence without any real evidence."....dont sweat it

 

and you are right....the question is too open ended. My bad.

Yes there are funds that do outperform, yes there are those that under perform - what ever market you wish to decide and what ever benchmark and what ever time frame you choose.

 

However.....just because you can find some funds that beat the market for a period of time.

the question should be.....

 

Do you have evidence that over the long run that most funds will NOT revert

back to the mean return for whatever markets they trade - as claimed by MM?

 

So far, we seem to have academia and often many institutional investors suggesting they cant - and hence why pay the fees to funds managers, while on the other side you have as MM calls it the hedge fund "propaganda" telling us that active management is not worth it.....

So clearly in the minds of many it is not resolved. ....you might believe in the flying spagetti monster but It would be interesting for any of those actually talking about this to present some evidence backing themselves....and not claims of I have found someone who can/cannot over this so and so period....so therefore I am right.....now thats not a discussion. That a sales pitch.

 

I dont think that markets are random.....but I am not so sure (not 100% convinced) whether or not most active funds can and will outperform the markets they trade in over the long run, or if they will revert to the mean of their markets.

(If you think this is definitively answered then you clearly have zero idea of one of the major debates continually raging in the managed funds area.....its also probably not that relevant to many in a day trading thread, but given people have brought it up)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The article makes sense since pension funds are frequently not equipped with staff to take invest in high risk, high leverage, high return investments. The easiest way to do so is to pay someone else with the know how. In spite of their under-funded-ness, they have a lot of money.

 

I do not doubt that a CNN reporter misinterpreted data and wrote an article by a deadline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The financial times in the UK.

Has a great supplement every Monday called FTfm about the funds management business.

This Monday the 5th Dec.....

front page... "Active Managers spark row", plus there is another article talking about "innovation", imho topical given why many just benchmark....its is safer.

 

FT.com / FTfm / Current Issue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course Funds cannot outperform the market - it is the people 'behind' these funds. Funds rely on people with good technical and fundamental abilities.

Fundamentals rely on people telling and writing the truth. Technicals rely on people understanding the indicators.

People are the key, good people, dedicated people and reliable people.

Chose your people with care, not the Fund.

TEAMTRADER

'Trade what you see and not what you hear or Hope'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is a theoretcal answer and an emperical answer. Or let me put it this way: The emperical question would be : Do Funds (on an average) out perform the market ? And the categorocal answer is : They do not. On an average Funds under perform the market. Always.

 

The theoretical question is -which is the one that Siyua poses is: Can Funds (ever?) out perform the market ?. Then the answer is now a categorical: Yes, some funds have been out performing the market. And a few do it consistently. Like some hedge funds and some quant funds. The first quant fund that comes to my mind is the Rennaissance Fund

 

See this quote:Renaissance's leading fund has returned 35%, after fees, since 1989. And D.E. Shaw & Corp., the brainchild of ex-Columbia University computer science professor David E. Shaw, with $23 billion in capital, has netted investors 21% a year for 17 years, without a single losing 12-month stretch. . That was till 2006. 2008 they hit a bad patch, but still it is still spectacular. Thare are quite a few like this -some extremely secretive.

 

The reality is that funds management is getting extremely sophisticated and skewed with long tails. A significant aportion of the extreme portion of the "positive" tail is actually invisible to us.

 

Jose Kollamkulam,

Chennai, India

 

After a few recent discussions about funds, out performance, random markets and efficient markets, rather than bog other threads down with diversions, maybe this thread could deal with the question.

Can funds outperform the market?

 

a few helpful starter packs....

 

http://www.hedgefundprofiler.com/Documents/154.pdf

http://perspectives.pictet.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Trading-Strategies-Final.pdf

Performance and Persistence of CTAs-Parametric Evidence

http://www.turtletrader.com/GL-SwissHedge.pdf

http://www.intercontilimited.com/mfutsarchive/perf_persistance_in_alternate_invest.pdf

 

I quite like the last one....but I think the conclusion will be inconclusive!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • NFLX Netflix stock watch, local support and resistance areas at 838.12 and 880.5 at https://stockconsultant.com/?NFLX
    • Date: 8th April 2025.   Markets Rebound Cautiously as US-China Tariff Tensions Deepen     Global markets staged a tentative recovery on Tuesday following a wave of volatility sparked by escalating trade tensions between the United States and China. The Asia-Pacific region showed signs of stability after a chaotic start to the week—though some pockets remained under pressure. Taiwan’s Taiex dropped 4.4%, dragged lower by losses in tech heavyweight TSMC. The world’s largest chipmaker fell another 4% on Tuesday and has now slumped 13.5% since April 2, when US President Donald Trump first unveiled what he called ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs.   However, broader sentiment across the region turned more positive, with several markets rebounding sharply after Monday’s dramatic sell-offs. Japan’s Nikkei 225 surged over 6% in early trading, rebounding from an 18-month low. South Korea’s Kospi rose marginally, and Australia’s ASX 200 gained 1.9%, driven by strength in mining stocks. Hong Kong’s Hang Seng rose 1.6%, though still far from recovering from Monday’s 13.2% crash—its worst day since the 1997 Asian financial crisis. China’s Shanghai Composite added 0.9%.   In Europe, DAX and FTSE 100 are up more than 1% in opening trade. EU Commission President von der Leyen repeated yesterday that the EU had offered reciprocal zero tariffs on manufactured goods previously and continues to stand by that offer. Others are also trying again to talk to Trump to get some sort of agreement that limits the impact.   Much of the rally appeared to be driven by dip-buying, as well as hopes that the intensifying trade war could still be defused through negotiations.   China Strikes Back: ‘We Will Fight to the End’   Tensions reached a boiling point after Trump threatened to impose an additional 50% tariff on all Chinese imports unless Beijing rolled back its retaliatory measures by April 8. ‘If China does not withdraw its 34% increase above their already long-term trading abuses by tomorrow... the United States will impose additional tariffs on China of 50%,’ Trump declared on social media.   If implemented, the new tariffs would bring total US duties on Chinese goods to a staggering 124%, factoring in the existing 20%, the 34% recently announced, and the proposed 50%.   In response, China’s Ministry of Commerce issued a stern warning, stating: ‘The US threat to escalate tariffs is a mistake on top of a mistake... If the US insists on its own way, China will fight to the end.’ The ministry also called for equal and respectful dialogue, though signs of compromise on either side remain scarce.   Beijing acted quickly to contain a market fallout. State funds intervened to support equities, and the People’s Bank of China set the yuan fixing at its weakest level since September 2023 to boost export competitiveness. Additionally, five-year interest rate swaps in China fell to their lowest levels since 2020, indicating potential for further monetary easing.   Trump Talks Tough on EU Too   Trump’s hardline approach extended beyond China. Speaking at a press conference, he rejected the European Union’s offer to eliminate tariffs on cars and industrial goods, accusing the bloc of ‘being very bad to us.’ He insisted that Europe would need to source its energy from the US, claiming the US could ‘knock off $350 billion in one week.’   The EU, meanwhile, backed away from a proposed 50% retaliatory tariff on American whiskey, opting instead for 25% duties on selected US goods in response to Trump’s steel and aluminium tariffs.     Volatile Wall Street Adds to the Drama   Wall Street experienced wild swings on Monday as investors processed the rapidly evolving trade conflict. The S&P 500 briefly fell 4.7% before rebounding 3.4%, nearly erasing its losses in what could have been its biggest one-day jump in years—if it had held. The Dow Jones Industrial Average sank by as much as 1,700 points early in the day but later climbed nearly 900 points before closing 349 points lower, down 0.9%. The Nasdaq ended up 0.1%.   The brief rally was fueled by a false rumour that Trump was considering a 90-day pause on tariffs—rumours that the White House quickly labelled ‘fake news.’ The market's sharp reaction underscored how desperate investors are for any sign that tensions might ease.   Oil Markets in Focus: Goldman Sachs Revises Forecasts   Crude prices also reflected the uncertainty, with US crude briefly dipping below $60 per barrel for the first time since 2021. As of early Tuesday, Brent crude was trading at $64.72, while WTI hovered around $61.26.   Goldman Sachs, in a note dated April 7, lowered its average price forecasts for Brent and WTI through 2025 and 2026, citing mounting recession risks and the potential for higher-than-expected supply from OPEC+.       Under a base-case scenario where the US avoids a recession and tariffs are reduced significantly before the April 9 implementation date, Goldman sees Brent at $62 per barrel and WTI at $58 by December 2025. These figures fall further to $55 and $51, respectively, by the end of 2026. This outlook also assumes moderate output increases from eight OPEC+ countries, with incremental boosts of 130,000–140,000 barrels per day in June and July.   However, should the US slip into a typical recession and OPEC production aligns with the bank’s baseline assumptions, Brent could retreat to $58 by the end of this year and to $50 by December 2026.   In a more bearish scenario involving a global GDP slowdown and no change to OPEC+ output levels, Brent prices might fall to $54 by year-end and $45 by late 2026. The most extreme projection—based on a simultaneous economic downturn and a full reversal of OPEC+ production cuts—would see Brent plunge to below $40 per barrel by the end of 2026.   Goldman noted that oil prices could outperform forecasts significantly if there was a dramatic shift in tariff policy and a surprise in global demand recovery.   Cautious Optimism, But Warnings Persist   With both Washington and Beijing showing no signs of backing down, markets are likely to remain volatile in the days ahead. Investors now turn their attention to upcoming trade meetings and policy decisions, hoping for clarity in what has become one of the most unpredictable trading environments in recent years.   Always trade with strict risk management. Your capital is the single most important aspect of your trading business.   Please note that times displayed based on local time zone and are from time of writing this report. Click HERE to access the full HFM Economic calendar.   Want to learn to trade and analyse the markets? Join our webinars and get analysis and trading ideas combined with better understanding of how markets work. Click HERE to register for FREE!   Click HERE to READ more Market news.   Andria Pichidi HFMarkets   Disclaimer: This material is provided as a general marketing communication for information purposes only and does not constitute an independent investment research. Nothing in this communication contains, or should be considered as containing, an investment advice or an investment recommendation or a solicitation for the purpose of buying or selling of any financial instrument. All information provided is gathered from reputable sources and any information containing an indication of past performance is not a guarantee or reliable indicator of future performance. Users acknowledge that any investment in Leveraged Products is characterized by a certain degree of uncertainty and that any investment of this nature involves a high level of risk for which the users are solely responsible and liable. We assume no liability for any loss arising from any investment made based on the information provided in this communication. This communication must not be reproduced or further distributed without our prior written permission.
    • CVNA Carvana stock watch, rebound to 166.56 support area at https://stockconsultant.com/?CVNA
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.