re: What are your trading strategies?

quote:

---

Index funds....they outperform everyone over time.

---

One question: are you familiar with the names Warren Buffett, Charles Munger, Peter Lynch, Howard Marks, George Soros, and Stanley Druckenmiller (to name a few)?

quote:

---

Are you a full time professional money manager or do you have another full time job? Are you one of those handful of super successful value investors? When you move into a stock do you acquire a board seat? Buffet would tell the avg non-pro investor to go index. Are you familiar with buffet's bet hedge fund mgrs v the index?

---

Ooh, I think I hit a nerve. I was merely pointing out the flaw in your statement that says, "Index funds....they outperform everyone over time." The emphasis is mine obviously, but your statement clearly says that no one can outperform the average market return, which simply isn't true and ignores reality. The names I listed are just a popular handful whose average annual returns have outperformed that of the general market's. That also doesn't take into consideration those who outperform the market through alpha, or returns generated in excess of risk; such investors/traders may not beat the market in % returns, but they have still outperformed the market.

But, if you want me to answer your questions:
No, I'm not a professional money manager; yes, I have a full time job. No, I am not one of the "super successful value investors", though even those whose successes aren't super can still outperform the market; also, when one considers my age and short investment history, there's little chance I would qualify to enter the discussion yet anyway. Considering lack of capital, I am unable to acquire a board seat on public companies right now, though that is a goal for one day. And yes, I am familiar with the bet.

Those answers don't change what I posted, which was to point out that index funds don't outperform everyone. If you would like a less well-known name to reinforce my point, then take a look at Kai Petainen at Michigan. The guy outperforms the market just through the use of stock screeners.

quote:

---

I never marry a stock. I always look to end a trade with free stocks.

---

And every time I've deviated from these simple rules, I've lost. Better to win ugly like the Mighty Iowa Hawkeyes, then to look flashy like some Johnny Manziel looking team, but lose. A win is a win, a loss is a loss. When bowl game time comes, no one cares how you looked throughout the season, they care if you are SEC or B1G champions, or at least close.

And for whatever reason, I still have to relearn this lesson form time to time.

I think you're missing my point, cwill. You don't have to be a super investor/trader to outperform the market, and my original response was merely to point to well-known names who achieved their returns in different ways. Buffett and Munger took over a failing textile mill and turned it into a value-investing conglomerate, Lynch was a mutual fund manager, Marks is a value investing hedge fund manager focused on high yield debt (the fund is public as OAK, and Buffett considers his memos worth a read, if you're interested), and George Soros and Stanley Druckenmiller are top-down hedge fund traders. Less and less common names still outperform the market, from Kai Petainen to one's coworkers.

Indexing is generally advised because an index fund guarantees the market average return minus fees at a cost of almost no time, energy, and expertise of the investor. Consistently outperforming the market average requires significant time, energy, and expertise (which requires time and energy to develop), but doing so doesn't even guarantee results as good as the index. So for the average investor, index funds guarantee a great return relative to the amount of resources (time, energy, and capital) used to achieve it.

So yes, Buffett and many others suggest indexing to the average investor because of this reason; because not having the required time, energy, and expertise can lead to the average investor blowing up their account and/or investment (think of the energy threads, like EXXI and SGY); because the average investor may lack sufficient interest in the stock market to devote their resources to chase an above-average return; and because mutual funds can underperform an index for a variety of reasons. Weighing the pros and cons, index funds are a good investment. And yes, the index fund strategy is generally correct for the board. But if someone has time, energy, and a strong interest in the market, Buffett and others would encourage that person to try investing differently and achieve a higher return. If that person keeps at it and focuses on growing knowledge, they'll likely succeed, even if they don't become famous for it. And since they are interested in the market, it isn't really work for them in the first place, which is a benefit.

At face value, your original statement is false, and stating that being a super investor/trader is required to outperform is also false. But I think I understand your intentions, and if I do, then the benefits of index investing I listed sit well with you. Still, at face value, your statement is nonsense, just like Jjdoc's was in the Target thread. And in his case, I think his intentions were different. Although he said the boycott was a factor in the earnings miss, I think he actually meant it might have lowered future guidance and analyst estimates, having an affect on the stock price. But it's not what he said, and you rightfully criticized him for it.

There is a lot that I'd like to say, cwill, but I don't think you're comprehending what I'm saying. And heck, there's a strawman right here:

quote:

---

This idea that avg joes can outperform the market overtime or that even most "experts" can has consistently been proven to not be true.

---

My posts did not say that the average person or that most people can outperform the market. It's statistically impossible for either to happen. What I did say is that it is possible to outperform the average with certain attributes/resources: time, energy, and expertise. The expertise is the important part - the other two only allow it to be used.

That expertise is what causes the above average performance - most people don't have it, you see. Most people don't think like a value investor or have the mindset of Soros and Druckenmiller. So unless they have such expertise or a different one that works, people are going to fail to outperform the market. Take away that value investing expertise from Buffett and Howard Marks, and they won't beat the market average. On the flip side, if a majority of people have that expertise, then the opportunities dry up, and a new mindset/expertise is needed to outperform. Buffett points out that expertise is the deciding factor HERE; Marks says the same through his discussion of second level thinking in his memos and his BOOK. In short, having effective and unique expertise makes someone above average, and using it should deliver above average results.

So that's my point, and to call it silly is at least naive and ignorant. I named "a few successful guys" because most people are familiar with some of the names; if someone told you that no one bats above .200, would you not point to famous names to prove the point? But I also mentioned Petainen, who is not famous. Piotroski and his F-score method also outperform the market, and most people don't know about him, either. What kind of example do you want that's not famous? Neighbors? Relatives? Coworkers? Doing so could potentially reveal my identity to some people IRL and on TD, so that is not going to happen.

Is indexing a good strategy for many people? Yes. Is it a good strategy for many of the people who visit this and other financial boards? Yes. I've said as much previously. But saying that the only sound strategies are to hire Buffett (or another successful famous person) or to index is not true. Good alternatives exist, but they will demand more from someone than those two strategies, and I've said as much. Does that clear up things?