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

    • Thx for reminding us... I don't bang that drum often enough anymore Another part for consideration is who that money initially went to...
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • How long does it take to receive HFM's withdrawal via Skrill? less than 24H?
    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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