quote:
You're basically arguing for something I either can't understand or cannot be provided to you because it simply doesn't exist. However you define "long term," the indexers say the manged funds lose. Pick whatever time frame, you lose

This is not an accurate statement.

So you are saying the "long haul/long term" does not exist, but some are willing to say that indexes beat managers over the "long haul/long term? Do you not see where I am confused?

This post was edited on 2/1/13 at 4:04 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Teddy Ruxpin

Member since Oct 2006

39608 posts

Posted on 2/1/13 at 4:03 pm to Janky

quote:
This is not an accurate statement

I know what you're getting at.

Its not accurate if you pick the winning fund. AKA you didn't index down the hole after 2007 and the fund you chose got out of losing assets.

Its accurate in the sense that usually, you're gonna pick the wrong fund and you went down the hole just like the index, and didn't make sufficient gains to beat it back on the way up either.

Of course if you pick the winning fund for 3 months, 6 months, 20 years, you beat the index, that's not the point of the argument though. The indexer argument is you won't make that selection enough times to win in the first place.

I kind of feel I'm talking in circles.

ETA: I will also add I've seen them run this with the infamous JANUS fund which crushed out returns for while in the 90s, etc.

If you read enough books on indexing, they will point out a handful of funds that would have done well over a lengthly period versus an index.

Magellan was one I believe in the 80s/90s.

This post was edited on 2/1/13 at 4:08 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Money Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board