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

    • Be careful who you blame.   I can tell you one thing for sure.   Effective traders don’t blame others when things start to go wrong.   You can hang onto your tendency to play the victim, or the martyr… but if you want to achieve in trading, you have to be prepared to take responsibility.   People assign reasons to outcomes, whether based on internal or external factors.   When traders face losses, it's common for them to blame bad luck, poor advice, or other external factors, rather than reflecting on their own personal attributes like arrogance, fear, or greed.   This is a challenging lesson to grasp in your trading journey, but one that holds immense value.   This is called attribution theory. Taking responsibility for your actions is the key to improving your trading skills. Pause and ask yourself - What role did I play in my financial decisions?   After all, you were the one who listened to that source, and decided to act on that trade based on the rumour. Attributing results solely to external circumstances is what is known as having an ‘external locus of control’.   It's a concept coined by psychologist Julian Rotter in 1954. A trader with an external locus of control might say, "I made a profit because the markets are currently favourable."   Instead, strive to develop an "internal locus of control" and take ownership of your actions.   Assume that all trading results are within your realm of responsibility and actively seek ways to improve your own behaviour.   This is the fastest route to enhancing your trading abilities. A trader with an internal locus of control might proudly state, "My equity curve is rising because I am a disciplined trader who faithfully follows my trading plan." Author: Louise Bedford Source: https://www.tradinggame.com.au/
    • SELF IMPROVEMENT.   The whole self-help industry began when Dale Carnegie published How to Win Friends and Influence People in 1936. Then came other classics like Think And Grow Rich by Napoleon Hill, Awaken the Giant Within by Tony Robbins toward the end of the century.   Today, teaching people how to improve themselves is a business. A pure ruthless business where some people sell utter bullshit.   There are broke Instagrammers and YouTubers with literally no solid background teaching men how to be attractive to women, how to begin a start-up, how to become successful — most of these guys speaking nothing more than hollow motivational words and cliche stuff. They waste your time. Some of these people who present themselves as hugely successful also give talks and write books.   There are so many books on financial advice, self-improvement, love, etc and some people actually try to read them. They are a waste of time, mostly.   When you start reading a dozen books on finance you realize that they all say the same stuff.   You are not going to live forever in the learning phase. Don't procrastinate by reading bull-shit or the same good knowledge in 10 books. What we ought to do is choose wisely.   Yes. A good book can change your life, given you do what it asks you to do.   All the books I have named up to now are worthy of reading. Tim Ferriss, Simon Sinek, Robert Greene — these guys are worthy of reading. These guys teach what others don't. Their books are unique and actually, come from relevant and successful people.   When Richard Branson writes a book about entrepreneurship, go read it. Every line in that book is said by one of the greatest entrepreneurs of our time.   When a Chinese millionaire( he claims to be) Youtuber who releases a video titled “Why reading books keeps you broke” and a year later another one “My recommendation of books for grand success” you should be wise to tell him to jump from Victoria Falls.   These self-improvement gurus sell you delusions.   They say they have those little tricks that only they know that if you use, everything in your life will be perfect. Those little tricks. We are just “making of a to-do-list before sleeping” away from becoming the next Bill Gates.   There are no little tricks.   There is no success-mantra.   Self-improvement is a trap for 99% of the people. You can't do that unless you are very, very strong.   If you are looking for easy ways, you will only keep wasting your time forgetting that your time on this planet is limited, as alive humans that is.   Also, I feel that people who claim to read like a book a day or promote it are idiots. You retain nothing. When you do read a good book, you read slow, sometimes a whole paragraph, again and again, dwelling on it, trying to internalize its knowledge. You try to understand. You think. It takes time.   It's better to read a good book 10 times than 1000 stupid ones.   So be choosy. Read from the guys who actually know something, not some wannabe ‘influencers’.   Edit: Think And Grow Rich was written as a result of a project assigned to Napoleon Hill by Andrew Carnegie(the 2nd richest man in recent history). He was asked to study the most successful people on the planet and document which characteristics made them great. He did extensive work in studying hundreds of the most successful people of that time. The result was that little book.   Nowadays some people just study Instagram algorithms and think of themselves as a Dale Carnegie or Anthony Robbins. By Nupur Nishant, Quora Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/    
    • there is no avoiding loses to be honest, its just how the market is. you win some and hopefully more, but u do lose some. 
    • $CSCO Cisco Systems stock, nice top of range breakout, from Stocks to Watch at https://stockconsultant.com/?CSCOSEPN Septerna stock watch for a bottom breakout, good upside price gap
    • $CSCO Cisco Systems stock, nice top of range breakout, from Stocks to Watch at https://stockconsultant.com/?CSCOSEPN Septerna stock watch for a bottom breakout, good upside price gap
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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